BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel. Since the point involved is short, the petition is being finally disposed of, with the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners had set up a new industrial unit for manufacture of rice in District Sultanpur. The manufacturing started on November 1, 1988 and the first sale took place on January 28, 1989. The petitioners were granted eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for a period of seven years with effect from January 28, 1989 to January 27, 1996. A copy of the order has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition. By paragraph 5 of the order the benefit was, however, restricted and was to be effective with effect from October 26, 1989. The reason for not making the benefit admissible to the petitioner, as indicated in para 5 of the order is that the petitioner was granted registration certificate under the Indian Factories Act, 1948 on October 26, 1989. The petitioner aggrieved by the restriction contained in para 5 of the order granting eligibility certificate filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the authority concerned may be directed to grant actual exemption to the petitioners with effect from January 28, 1989 to January 27, 1996 instead of with effect from October 26, 1989 to January 27, 1996. Thus, the dispute is confined for the period from January 28, 1989 to October 25, 1989. The petitioners representation was rejected by the Joint Director of Industries. The order of rejection has been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. The quashing of that order has also been prayed for. 3. The ground for seeking the relief as indicated above was that the requirement of registration under the Indian Factories Act was directory in nature. For the purposes of exemption the relevant factor is only the date of the first sale. Therefore, the period of benefit of eligibility certificate cannot be curtailed and be made effective from the date of registration under the Indian Factories Act. 4. It appears that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioners also moved for modification of the registration certificate under the Indian Factories Act. Therefore, the period of benefit of eligibility certificate cannot be curtailed and be made effective from the date of registration under the Indian Factories Act. 4. It appears that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioners also moved for modification of the registration certificate under the Indian Factories Act. That prayer was allowed by order dated July 5, 1994 by the competent authority under the Factories Act and the modified registration was given with effect from November 1, 1988. A copy of the said order modifying the registration certificate under the Factories Act has been filed as annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit. On modification of the registration certificate, the petitioner moved the Divisional Level Committee on July 7, 1994 for making the benefit admissible with effect from January 28, 1989. Their application was, however, rejected on the ground that the review is possible only if it is moved within 30 days of the order sought to be modified. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which also met the same fate on the same ground that the application was beyond limitation. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the trade tax authorities have refused the relief on the ground of limitation though it was humanly impossible to move application for making the relief admissible, which was curtailed, only after the registration certificate was modified under the Factories Act. 6. The facts as indicated above have not been denied on behalf of the opposite parties. The learned State Counsel has, however, submitted that the petitioner could move revision under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 impugning the orders passed by the Divisional Level Committee and the Appellate Tribunal. Hence the prayer for grant of this relief cannot be entertained in the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. So far the claim of the petitioners on merits, has rightly not been denied, that the benefit which has been curtailed under para, 5 of the order granting eligibility certificate, would otherwise be available to the petitioner once the registration certificate under the Factories Act has been modified and has been made effective with effect from November 1, 1998. So far the claim of the petitioners on merits, has rightly not been denied, that the benefit which has been curtailed under para, 5 of the order granting eligibility certificate, would otherwise be available to the petitioner once the registration certificate under the Factories Act has been modified and has been made effective with effect from November 1, 1998. It is also submitted that the petitioner should have moved for modification of the certificate before the authorities under the Factories Act within thirty days of grant of eligibility certificate by the trade tax authorities. 7. The net result which emerges on the basis of the undisputed facts is that though the eligibility certificate was granted for a full period of seven years with effect from January 28, 1989 to January 27, 1996, its benefit was not made admissible by paragraph 5 of the order for the period with effect from January 28, 1980 to October 25, 1989. There is also no dispute about the fact that otherwise the petitioner, was granted the eligibility certificate for the full period of seven years and that on modification of the registration certificate, the petitioner would be entitled for the relief for the whole period. The only hurdle which came in the way of the petitioner, according to the opposite parties is limitation part for review of the order. In our view, the petitioner could move for making the benefit admissible to him regarding curtailed period only after the authorities under the Factories Act had modified the registration certificate and not before that. Therefore, it was not possible to move any application earlier. 8. It is true that in view of the later developments which took place after filing of the writ petition the position has changed. Needless to indicate the subsequent developments which took place during the pendency of writ petition can well be taken note of. In this connection, however, the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in 1993 (II) LCD 861 (Mahabir Prasad v. Sixth Additional District Judge, Gonda ). This position is not in dispute. It is true that originally the relief which was claimed was on the basis of a different ground, none-the-less, the relief still remains the same. The changed circumstances and subsequent developments entitled the petitioner for the relief. This is also not in dispute. This position is not in dispute. It is true that originally the relief which was claimed was on the basis of a different ground, none-the-less, the relief still remains the same. The changed circumstances and subsequent developments entitled the petitioner for the relief. This is also not in dispute. In that connection, however, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision reported in 1993 UPTC 1174 (Laxmi Narain Flour Mills v. State of U. P ). The matter related to grant of eligibility certificate. The period during which the premises remained on lease on the basis of an unregistered lease deed which was later covered by a registered lease deed, it was held that the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit on the basis of subsequent registered lease deed covering the period which was earlier covered under an unregistered deed. The condition as contemplated was held to be satisfied. The ratio of the said decision, it is submitted would apply in the present case as well. Taking into account the developments which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition and those facts having brought on the record, in our view, the relief prayed for can be granted on the basis of such facts. So far the objections that once the petitioners had moved application before the Divisional Level Committee and before the appellate authority, he could only move for revision of those orders is concerned, in our view, on the circumstances indicated above, the plea of availability of remedy by revision would not come in the way of the petitioner. The authorities have not rejected the application on merit. As indicated earlier, the same has also not been disputed before us. The date of starting of production, namely, November 1, 1988 and the date of first sale, namely, January 28, 1989 both are covered by the period of the registration certificate under the Factories Act, in view of the modification of the said certificate by order dated July 5, 1994. 9. In the above circumstances, the relief as prayed in the petition could not be refused. The circumstances which have been particularly taken into account by us for coming to the above conclusion are that so far review is concerned, the petitioner ccould not move for the same before the registration certificate under the Factories Act was modified by the authorities. In the above circumstances, the relief as prayed in the petition could not be refused. The circumstances which have been particularly taken into account by us for coming to the above conclusion are that so far review is concerned, the petitioner ccould not move for the same before the registration certificate under the Factories Act was modified by the authorities. By the time it was modified the period of thirty days had lapsed much before the same nor do we think it will make any difference on merit, on the basis of the argument advanced that the petitioner should have moved for modification of the registration certificate under the Factories Act within thirty days of grant of eligibility certificate by the trade tax authorities. The fact which remains and has not been denied is that the registration certificate is taken to be there with effect from November 1, 1988 which covers the period for which the petitioner claimed benefit. As a matter of fact, the order granting eligibility certificate itself says in paragraph 2 that the benefit of exemption would be admissible to the petitioner with effect from January 28, 1989 to January 27, 1996, namely, from the date of the first sale but later on by paragraph 5 of the same order the benefit granted in the earlier part of the order has been withdrawn for a period from January 28, 1989 to October 25, 1989 for the reason that the registration certificate under the Factories Act was not covering the said period. The period now stands covered by the registration certificate under the Factories Act. In these circumstances, we find no reason as to why the petitioner be denied the relief prayed for on the basis of the subsequent events which have taken place and have not been denied nor do we feel that the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of revision under the Sales Tax Act against the orders passed by the Divisional Level Committee and the appellate authority. Where the facts are undisputed, this Court can always, taking into account the subsequent events entertain the prayer and grant the relief and we feel it in such cases as is in the present, the principle would be applicable that the alternative remedy will not be an absolute bar. It depends upon the facts and circumstance of the case. 10. Where the facts are undisputed, this Court can always, taking into account the subsequent events entertain the prayer and grant the relief and we feel it in such cases as is in the present, the principle would be applicable that the alternative remedy will not be an absolute bar. It depends upon the facts and circumstance of the case. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and paragraph 5 of the order dated February 6, 1992 granting eligibility certificate to the petitioner, restricting the benefit as granted by para 2 of the order, with effect from October 26, 1989 is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled for the benefit for the whole period with effect from January 28, 1989 to January 27, 1996 as made admissible under section 4-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act by the order granting eligibility certificate. There would be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. .