Court dismisses challenge, sets aside order, cites violation of natural justice, remands for reconsideration.

The court dismissed the challenge against the assessment order due to the availability of an alternate statutory remedy. However, the court set aside the order rejecting the application for amendment in the eligibility certificate, citing violation of natural justice and remanded the matter for reconsideration with a directive to provide a hearing opportunity. The writ petition was partially allowed with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Grievance against the assessment order dated September 5, 2009, for the assessment year 2005-06.
2. Grievance against the order dated October 22, 2009/November 3, 2009, regarding the rejection of the application for amendment in the eligibility certificate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grievance against the Assessment Order Dated September 5, 2009:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated September 5, 2009, passed by the assessing authority (opposite-party No. 3) for the assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction as it was passed during the pendency of their application under sub-section (2B) of section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, for amendments in the eligibility certificate. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy by way of appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Citing precedents such as *Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa* and *Central Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand*, the court dismissed this part of the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy. The court directed that if the petitioner seeks the alternate remedy, the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation but should be decided on the merits.

2. Grievance against the Order Dated October 22, 2009/November 3, 2009:
The petitioner also challenged the order dated October 22, 2009/November 3, 2009, passed by opposite-party No. 2, which rejected their application for amendment in the eligibility certificate on the ground that it was filed beyond the statutory period of 60 days. The petitioner contended that the starting point of limitation should be the date of receipt of the BIFR order (November 29, 2005), not the date of issuance (November 16, 2005). The court agreed with this argument, citing cases such as *Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Navyug Brishak Suppliers, Chandausi* and *Krishna Paper House, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.*, which established that the limitation period should commence from the date of communication of the order. The court found that the impugned order was contrary to law and violated principles of natural justice and fair play.

The court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the availability of an alternate remedy under section 10 of the Act, referencing the *Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai* case, which held that alternate remedies are not an absolute bar when orders are passed in violation of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated October 22, 2009/November 3, 2009, and remanded the matter back to the authority to reconsider and decide the application for amendment of the eligibility certificate after providing due opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.

---