SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a person registered under the Provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Petitioner had been extended certain tax benefits, such as deferment of liability for a period of 8 years with effect from 12. 7. 1999 to 11. 7. 2007 in the light of certain industrial policy pursued by the State and to encourage growth of industries in certain areas. ( 2 ) WHILE the petitioner availed of such a benefit it appears that the products which the petitioner manufactures and sells are one which are now covered by the provisions of the VAT Act which has come into force with effect from 1. 4. 2005. The provisions of VAT Act under Section 42 (3) (a) had provided for continuation of such benefit which had been conferred under the provisions of K. S. T. Act, 57 in respect of the goods produced by the petitioner and sold even after the VAT Act came into force till such time that the said goods are liable to tax under the vat Act and for such purpose such persons were required to make an application seeking for continuation of the concessional benefits under the VAT Act. Earlier, time for making the application was within 30th April 2005 in terms of a Notification dated 18. 4. 2005. ( 3 ) THE respondents having realised the futility of such an exercise as perhaps the notification had not even been made available before the last date, had issued yet another notification extending such period for making an application up to 15. 7. 2005 but did not give up the practice of issuing the notification at the last moment as the notification itself is dated 8. 7. 2005 and even this notification was not made available to the public at large before the last date. ( 4 ) THE petitioners, it appears, had filed an application dated 29. 7. 2000 seeking extension of the benefit under the VAT Act also but the authorities rejected the same by issue of the endorsement at Annexure-E indicating that as the application has been filed beyond the stipulated period. e. 15. 7. 2005. Hence the same was rejected. ( 5 ) IT is aggrieved by such endorsement the present writ petition is filed. 2000 seeking extension of the benefit under the VAT Act also but the authorities rejected the same by issue of the endorsement at Annexure-E indicating that as the application has been filed beyond the stipulated period. e. 15. 7. 2005. Hence the same was rejected. ( 5 ) IT is aggrieved by such endorsement the present writ petition is filed. Submission of Sri S. S. Angadi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that while the Section itself permitted the continuation of the benefit in view of the change over to the VAT system of taxing, it is only the rules that has disentitled the petitioner to the said benefit by stipulating an unpractically short period; that the stipulation of the time was not even made well in advance. The notification at annexure-C3, C4 and C5 in reality work at cross-purposes with Section 42 (3) (a ). Therefore they are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) NOTICES had been issued to the Learned Government Advocate. The Additional Commissioner of Tax Department had also appeared before this Court and she had been apprised of the impracticality of stipulation of time. The order passed on that day. e. 30. 9. 2005 reads as under:- Smt. Kaveri Monnappa, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Policy and Law) has appeared before the Court today. The Additional Commissioner has explained the circumstances under which the notification had been issued earlier and the Department having realised the inadequacies particularly the short time interval that had been given under the earlier notifications within which time dealers who had availed benefit of the incentive schemes were required to intimate the respondents to seek for continuation of the benefits, was rather less; that in the light of such experience the Department itself had taken steps by moving the Government for deletion of the time limit clause and submits that fresh notification in this regard is likely to be issued shortly. (2) Smt. Niloufer Akbar, Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in the light of this development, no further orders are required in this writ petition. (3) Sr. Angadi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that as the petitioner's request for extending the benefit had been rejected as beyond time, the authorities have thereafter proceeded to determine the liability of the petitioner under the provisions of VAT and have also issued a demand notice dated 17. 8. (3) Sr. Angadi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that as the petitioner's request for extending the benefit had been rejected as beyond time, the authorities have thereafter proceeded to determine the liability of the petitioner under the provisions of VAT and have also issued a demand notice dated 17. 8. 2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay such sum and submits that as the petitioner had been given the benefit of deferment of taxes, such taxes are not liable to be paid as of now and is to be paid only in the year 2008 in terms of the concession extended to the petitioner as a person having set up a new industrial schemes. Now that the tax benefit is indicative of the scheme as per notification dated 15. 11. 1996. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that this Court has to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the endorsement dated 4. 8. 2005, copy at Annexure-E to the petition, rejecting the request for extension of tax benefit to the petitioner etc. In the circumstances, the endorsement at Annexure-E rejecting the request of the petitioner for extending the tax benefit to which he had become entitled to under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax r/w the relevant notifications is hereby stayed pending further orders in this writ petition. The Government has now examined the matter afresh. It is now submitted by Learned government Advocate that in terms of a fresh notification dated 25. 10. 2005 copy of which is produced along with a memo dated 21. 11. 2005 filed on behalf of the respondents by the Learned additional Government Advocate, the time stipulation has now been done away and the requirement is that such a person should make an application. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, what is submitted by Sri S. S. Angadi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents having already issued an endorsement rejecting the request made, can not entertain yet another application and, therefore, endorsement at Annexure-E is quashed. The petitioner will be left high and dry notwithstanding the present notification doing away with the time stipulation for seeking extension of the benefit. The petitioner will be left high and dry notwithstanding the present notification doing away with the time stipulation for seeking extension of the benefit. Prayer is not much opposed by the Learned additional Government Advocate and I am of the view that the circumstances necessitate striking down the endorsement at Annexure-E. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorary. It is open to the petitioner to apply afresh for seeking extension for continuation of the concession the petitioner had been accorded under the provisions of the K. S. T. Act. Respondents also not to take any other coercive proceedings as against the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner should have paid the taxes which are otherwise covered by such concession before considering the request of the petitioner for extending such benefit under the VAT Act. Rule issued and made absolute.