Judgment N.K.SODHI, J. 1. It is unfortunate that the authorities below including the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, shut their eyes to the patent facts which were available on the record and directed the petitioner to deposit tax on the basis of the assessment made by the assessing officer. Petitioner is a manufacturing unit engaged in the production of wiremesh which is used in the poultry farms, etc. It has been given exemption from sales tax/purchase tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991. Annexure P-l with the writ petition is the eligibility certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ludhiana. It is clear that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax/purchase tax of Rs. 2,24,83,389 for the period from April 28, 1995 to April 27, 2002. The assessing officer made assessments for the year 1995-96 and for the subsequent years and determined the assessable tax. Since the petitioner was an exempted unit and was availing the benefit of tax exemption under the aforesaid Rules was not liable to deposit the said tax. Even though the petitioner was an exempted unit the assessing officer directed it to deposit tax as assessed under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 . Feeling aggrieved by the orders of assessment, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, both under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The memorandum of appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 20(5) of the Act requesting the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without prior payment of the tax. A similar application was filed under Section 9(2) of that Act. The appellate authority without considering the fact that the petitioner was an exempted unit disallowed the request of the petitioner and required it to deposit different sums of money for different assessment years. Still not satisfied, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal and there too it was pleaded that the petitioner being an exempted unit was not liable to deposit the assessed tax. This fact was again ignored and the Tribunal directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeals on deposit of 50 per cent of the amount as determined by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala. This fact was again ignored and the Tribunal directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeals on deposit of 50 per cent of the amount as determined by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Notice of motion was issued. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 on May 16, 2002 and sought time to file reply on behalf of the respondent. He was allowed three weeks time but no reply has been filed so far. Not only this, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent today. 3. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition. It is more than clear that the petitioner is an exempted unit and the period of exemption was not yet over nor had the amount been exhausted and, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the authorities below were not justified in requiring the petitioner to deposit the assessed amount before entertaining its appeals. This fact is apparent from the record but unfortunately none of the authorities below took note of it. We, therefore, allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders and direct the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, to entertain the appeals filed by the petitioner without deposit of any tax and decide the same in accordance with law.