ORDER MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. The petitioner, a manufacturer of garments, was provisionally assessed for the tax assessment year 1999-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int.), Warangal Division, Warangal. In the provisional assessment, the tax liability was determined to the tune of Rs. 4,63,273 as per the provisions of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 by order dated November 19, 2000, which was served on the petitioner on January 6, 2001. As against the provisional assessment order made by the assessing authority the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., second respondent on February 3, 2001 and the same is pending. While so, the Government promulgated an Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3 of 2001) called as the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Ordinance, 2001 providing a scheme for the settlement of the disputed tax. The requisite conditions for the application of the scheme provided in the above Ordinance are, that the assessment should have been done before March 31, 2001, appeal filed by the assessee should be pending before the appellate authority as on March 31, 2001 and that the tax liability should remain unpaid. The petitioner claimed to have filed an application in form No. 1, expressing his willingness, to settle the dispute as per the scheme. It is the grievance of the petitioner that rejection of its application dated August 31, 2001 in form No. 1 by order dated October 31, 2001, is illegal, inasmuch as though the appeal was filed on February 3, 2001, earlier to the date March 31, 2001, the rejection of its application by the respondents on the ground that the appeal is not numbered before March 31, 2001 and as such it amounts no pendency of appeal is unsustainable. In the background of the dispute with regard to the petitioner's claim of preferring the appeal on February 3, 2001, we directed the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing on behalf of the respondents to place the relevant record to satisfy ourselves whether the petitioner's claim that the appeal had been filed on February 3, 2001 is correct or not. Accordingly, the entire record is placed before us by the learned Special Government Pleader. Accordingly, the entire record is placed before us by the learned Special Government Pleader. A note sent to the Special Government Pleader by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Hanmakonda of Warangal District through proceedings dated January 2, 2002 indicates that though the appeal was filed by the petitioner on February 3, 2001, the appeal could not be admitted before March 31, 2001. It would appear from a reading of the communication received by the learned Special Government Pleader, though the appeal was filed by the petitioner on February 3, 2001 it was admitted only on April 12, 2001 and no justifying reasons have been shown in the communication as to why the appeal could not be admitted before the cut off date, i.e., March 31, 2001. As provided under section 4(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 3 of 2001, the provisions of the Ordinance shall apply to an assessment order, revision order, reassessment order, penalty and interest order passed up to 31st March, 2001, and cases relating to such orders pending before various appellate and revisional authorities. In case of revision, the revision notice or order must have been served on or before 31st March, 2001. A dealer who is in receipt of any show cause notice prior to March 31, 2001 pending final proceedings can also apply. A reading of the above provisions indicates that the requirement is, the appeal must have been filed on or before March 31, 2001. It is not the case of the respondents that the appeal filed by the petitioner was returned for compliance of certain objections to hold that the appeal was not filed in time. In the absence of any such objections forthcoming before us, as is evident from the record, we hold that the appeal has been filed in time, which entitles the petitioner to take advantage of the scheme provided under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits provided under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001 and the respondents are not justified in denying the benefits of the scheme to the petitioner solely on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not registered as on March 31, 2001. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the petitioner has made out a case before us requiring our interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we set aside the order dated October 31, 2001 of the first respondent and consequently direct the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefits in terms of the scheme provided under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. No costs. Petition ordered accordingly.