A. P. MISRA, J. In view of the exchange of affidavits between the parties, the present petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage in accordance with the rule of the Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner by means of the writ petition has challenged rule 25-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as it provides for making of an application for renewal of the recognition certificate under section 4-B (2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as invalid and void. The petitioner also sought for a declaration of rules 25-A (1), 25-A (1a) and 25-A (12) of the Rules as invalid, void and ultra vires and has also sought for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Allahabad, to treat the petitioners recognition certificate dated 12th July, 1977, issued under section 4-B of the Act for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 as valid. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the point of the validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules but confined his argument to the later part of the relief sought for in the writ petition. The only point which we are called upon to adjudicate in the present writ petition is whether the application for renewal made by the petitioner for recognition certificate for the aforesaid relevant years in question was rightly rejected by the competent authority by means of the impugned order dated 7th October, 1985, which is annexure 15 to the writ petition. The reason for the rejection of the application dated 17th March, 1981, was that the said application was not accompanied by the requisite deposit of fees for the grant of exemption as required under rule 25-A (3) of the Rules, which is Rs. 150. The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled to a refund of Rs. 15,477. 18 for the assessment year 1976-77 on the basis of order passed under section 22 on 30th March, 1983, and thus he has requested the respondent-authority to adjust Rs. 150 out of the refund which he is entitled for the exemption fee of Rs. 150. 15,477. 18 for the assessment year 1976-77 on the basis of order passed under section 22 on 30th March, 1983, and thus he has requested the respondent-authority to adjust Rs. 150 out of the refund which he is entitled for the exemption fee of Rs. 150. Copies of various letters and reminders for the said adjustment have been annexed by the petitioner as annexures to this petition, which have not been denied. The reason for refusal in the impugned order is, since on the date on which the petitioner made an application under section 4-B on 17th March, 1981, there was no order of refund for which the petitioner seeks adjustment of Rs. 150 as the said order was passed on 30th March, 1983, hence petitioners application for recognition certificate not being accompanied with the requisite fee of Rs. 150 was rejected on 7th October, 1985. For convenience sake relevant provisions of rule 25-A are quoted below : " 25-A. Certificate of recognition.- (1) An application for the issue of or renewal of recognition certificate under sub-section (2) of section 4-B shall be made to the Sales Tax Officer in form XVIII. It shall be signed in the case of a business carried on by - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) The fee payable by the dealer for recognition certificate shall be one hundred rupees for the first assessment year or part thereof and fifty rupees for each subsequent year and for renewal of recognition certificate shall be fifty rupees for each assessment year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) Subject to the provisions of sub-rules (1-A) and (12), the recognition certificate shall take effect from the date of presentation of the application under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1-A), as the case may be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) Where the Sales Tax Officer is not satisfied that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete, or where the fee referred to in sub-rule (3) has not been paid, or where the dealer has failed to furnish the security, if any, demanded from him under sub-section (3) of section 4-B, he shall reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided that before the application is rejected, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter and, as the case may be, of correction and completing the said particulars or complying the said requirements of sub-rule (3) or of an order demanding security passed under sub-section (3) of section 4-B. " On behalf of the petitioner it has been urged, in view of proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 25-A of the Rules, it was incumbent on the respondent-authority before rejecting the aforesaid application to have given an opportunity to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that till the order for refund was passed on 30th March, 1983, the application of the petitioner remained pending. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the respondent-authority for adjusting Rs. 150 out of the refund, which he was entitled, towards the said fees. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the letter dated 31st July, 1985, as annexure 10 to the writ petition wherein intimation was given to the petitioner referring to the refund voucher for Rs. 8,642. 92 for the year 1977-78 and Rs. 15,477. 18 for the year 1976-77. Admittedly, till this date his aforesaid application was not rejected. After the receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner sent letter to the respondent-authority on 3rd October, 1985, for the adjustment of Rs. 150 out of the aforesaid amounts refundable to the petitioner. It seems that the respondent-authority, in spite of that, rejected the application on the ground that on the date on which the petitioner made an application for the grant of exemption under section 4-B of the Act there was no refund order passed and the application not being accompanied with the requisite fee was liable to be rejected. It seems that the respondent-authority, in spite of that, rejected the application on the ground that on the date on which the petitioner made an application for the grant of exemption under section 4-B of the Act there was no refund order passed and the application not being accompanied with the requisite fee was liable to be rejected. It is pertinent to mention here that an opportunity was given to the petitioner by means of a notice dated 19th September, 1985, in terms of proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 25-A of the Rules, in pursuance of which the petitioner appeared and sent a reply dated 3rd October, 1985, wherein he reiterated regarding adjustments of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 150 out of the amounts to which the petitioner was entitled for refund as aforesaid. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner before the rejection of the application has intimated to the respondent-authority to adjust the said amount out of the aforesaid amount lying with the department. The aforesaid letter dated 31st July, 1985 (annexure 10 to the petition) of the respondent also specifically mentioned and asked the petitioner to intimate regarding the adjustment of the said amount. Thus, till the rejection of the application of the petitioner the facts on the record reveal that the petitioner did make an application under section 4-B on the 17th March, 1981, and on that date the application did not accompany the requisite fee. Thereafter, the respondent-authority only issued show cause notice in pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 25-A in the year 1985 as to why the said deposit was not made. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner intimated for the adjustment out of the refund which he was entitled in view of the order passed on 30th March, 1983. That was followed with the impugned order dated 7th October, 1985, wherein for reasons as aforesaid the application was rejected. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner intimated for the adjustment out of the refund which he was entitled in view of the order passed on 30th March, 1983. That was followed with the impugned order dated 7th October, 1985, wherein for reasons as aforesaid the application was rejected. On behalf of the respondents, the argument was that the recognition certificate can only be granted from the date on which the conditions are complied with in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 25-A and even if the case of the petitioner is accepted regarding the adjustment it can only be from the date from which either the petitioner was entitled for adjustment or from the date the actual adjustment was made in pursuance of the said application. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench case in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Behari Lal Ram Krishna 1970 UPTC 730. The Full Bench was interpreting rule 20-B (a), which was held to be mandatory and it was further held : " Dealer, seeking to obtain exemption from tax for the entire assessment year, must make exemption application within 30 days of the commencement of the assessment year, and also deposit, within that period, one-fourth of the exemption fee, calculated on the turnover of the previous year. Where the dealer makes good the deficiency even after the prescribed time, his exemption application may be treated as in order, but that can be only with reference to the date, on which the deficiency is made good. Application will, then be considered as having been made on that date, and on the basis of rule 20-B (f), the dealer will be entitled to a provisional exemption certificate with effect from such date, and not for the entire assessment year. " We have perused the aforesaid Full Bench decision and we find that the Full Bench was concerned with rule 20-B (f), which has since been deleted by means of amendment in 1981. It is significant under sub-clause (a) of rule 20-B the application for exemption in form V is to be accompanied by a treasury challan showing deposit of one-fourth of the exemption fee calculated on the turnover of the previous year. There is no corresponding provision under rule 25-A that an application for exemption is to accompany a treasury challan or the deposit of fees as contemplated under sub-rule (3 ). There is no corresponding provision under rule 25-A that an application for exemption is to accompany a treasury challan or the deposit of fees as contemplated under sub-rule (3 ). Sub-rule (5) of rule 25-A of the Rules has been brought by means of the U. P. Taxation Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1978. Subsequent to the decision of the aforesaid Full Bench this sub-rule has been made only subject to the provisions of sub-rules (1a) and (12) of rule 25-A. It is provided therein that the recognition certificate shall take effect from the date of presentation of the application under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1a) as the case may be. By interpreting this provision we have no hesitation and there is only one possible inference which can be drawn that whenever recognition certificate is to be granted under rule 25-A of the Rules it will date back from the date the application is made under sub-rule (1 ). Since sub-rule (5) of rule 25-A is only subject to the provisions of sub-rules (1a) and (12) of rule 25-A it is significant that the proviso to sub-rule (7) further puts an obligation on the respondent-authority that before rejecting an application for grant of exemption it must give an opportunity to the dealer concerned of correcting and completing the said particulars or complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3 ). This means that even if an application is made, which requires correction or completion in respect of some matters or if an application has been made without complying with the requirement of sub-rule (3), which includes non-deposit of certain amount then before rejecting such an application an opportunity is to be given by the authority and after giving that opportunity if the conditions are complied with then an order granting recognition certificate in view of sub-rule (5) would date back from the date of presentation of application under sub-rule (1) or rule (1a) as the case may be. The decision in the aforesaid Full Bench case is to the effect that application would only be treated from the date the condition is complied with and only then the dealer would be entitled to the benefit under rule (20-B) (f ). The decision in the aforesaid Full Bench case is to the effect that application would only be treated from the date the condition is complied with and only then the dealer would be entitled to the benefit under rule (20-B) (f ). But as we have expressed our view earlier that under rule 25-A reading sub-rules (3), (5) and proviso to sub-rule (7) it is amply clear that once correction is made by the dealer concerned after having been afforded an opportunity under the proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 25-A then recognition certificate for the grant of exemption is to be treated from the date of making of such an application. Learned Standing Counsel further submits, in view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, that actually the amount which was refundable to the petitioner was really not refundable but was issued by mistake since the petitioner was liable to pay interest for the relevant year in question which was to the tune of Rs. 72,813. 05 and Rs. 1,10,980. Hence, there could be no question of adjustment of the amount for which refund voucher was issued. By perusal of counter-affidavit it is clear that the respondent-authority itself issued notice to the petitioner about the liability of the petitioner of paying interest on 30th March, 1984, for both the years, viz. , 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amounts within time mentioned by the respondent-authority. We find that on the basis of this notice the respondent cannot take advantage for the purpose of not adjusting the said amounts, if it was found due to the petitioner in view of order of refund passed earlier. Admittedly, the application for the grant of exemption was made as far back as 17th March, 1981 and order for refund was passed on 30th March, 1983, while the notice for the deposit of interest was issued on 30th March, 1984 and payment being made on 10th May, 1984, i. e. , much before issuance of notice to the petitioner in terms of proviso to sub-rule (7 ). On the date when the notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent for having not deposited Rs. 150 the position was completely changed. On the date when the notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent for having not deposited Rs. 150 the position was completely changed. Admittedly, the interest already having been deposited the entitlement of the petitioner of the refund in terms of refund voucher remained the same and when an opportunity was given by the respondent the petitioner having clearly requested in this case on that date there was no interest due as against the petitioner, the stand of the respondent is not sustainable. This judgment should not be understood as in any way diluting the provisions as contained in rule 25-A, sub-rule (3) requiring a dealer to deposit requisite fees along with an application for the grant of exemption under section 4-B. Every dealer making an application under section 4-B of the Act has to deposit fees referred in sub-rule (3) for the purpose of grant of recognition certificate. Under sub-rule (4) if the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied after inquiry that the particulars contained in the application made under sub-rule (1) are correct and complete and the fee referred in sub-rule (3) has been paid and security, if any, required to be fumished under sub-section (3) of section 4-B has been furnished by the dealer within time and in the manner required by the Sales Tax Officer, he shall grant him a recognition certificate in form XIX. In case the dealer fails to deposit the fees under sub-rule (3) even after opportunity to him as contained in the proviso to sub-rule (7) the respondent-authority could reject the application made under sub-rule (1 ). Even in the present case admittedly, when the petitioner made an application on the 17th March, 1981 and no fee having been deposited under sub-rule (3) the respondent-sales tax authority could have rejected the same after giving opportunity to the petitioner in case fee under sub-rule (3) having not been deposited by him. As we have said above, in the present case, till the year 1985 the said application remained pending and non-deposit of fee as contemplated under sub-rule (3) was never pointed out to the dealer by the respondent-authority in terms of proviso to sub-rule (7 ). As we have said above, in the present case, till the year 1985 the said application remained pending and non-deposit of fee as contemplated under sub-rule (3) was never pointed out to the dealer by the respondent-authority in terms of proviso to sub-rule (7 ). It is on these facts, we have held that the rejection of the petitioners application by the respondent-sales tax authority was not justified since on that date after giving opportunity the petitioner complied with the requirement of deposit of fees by requesting for adjustment of the amount lying with the department which was refundable to him. In view of the aforesaid position, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated 7th October, 1985 (annexure 15 to the petition) is liable to be quashed. In the result, we allow this petition, quash the order dated 7th October, 1985 (annexure 15 to the petition) and direct the respondent No. 2 to pass orders for grant of recognition certificate to the petitioner for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 in terms of the directions given by us as aforesaid within a period of three weeks from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. Costs on parties. Writ petition allowed. .