JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI J. - The petitioner, said to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of digital and electronic clocks, applied for and was granted benefits under the Sales Tax Exemption Scheme, 1987 ("the Scheme"). The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that due to recession in the market, it was unable to make optimum utilisation of the capacity and, therefore, could not avail of full benefit under the Scheme and possession of the unit has also been taken over by Bank of Baroda in enforcement of their security. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 issued wholly without jurisdiction notice on November 15, 2003 for withdrawal of the benefits under the Scheme for not maintaining the average production as per clause 4(e)(i) of the Scheme that was represented against; but then, respondent No. 2 without any notice and without opportunity of hearing suddenly passed the impugned order dated March 8, 2004 (annexure 6) under clause 9(b) of the Scheme for withdrawal of the benefit of the exemption granted to the petitioner with retrospective effect. The petitioner has further pointed out that the matter was pending before the District Level Screening Committee but respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the order and directed the assessing authority to recover the entire amount of sales tax; and respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the order dated March 8, 2004 issued the impugned notice dated March 15, 2004 to the petitioner for payment of the entire amount of alleged sales tax; and thereafter, though the petitioner made representation, respondent No. 2 by the impugned order dated July 21, 2004 rejected the representation and the Department has adopted coercive recovery proceedings. While challenging such withdrawal of benefits under the said Scheme, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the demand raised and for striking down the proviso inserted below clause 9(b) of the Scheme. This petition was entertained on May 5, 2005 and while issuing notice, the matter was ordered to be listed along with C.W.P. No. 1018 of 2005 (Gopal Granite & Marble v. State of Rajasthan); and in the meantime, operation and effect of the impugned order dated March 8, 2004 (annexure 6) was ordered to remain stayed. The matter was to be listed before the court on November 18, 2005 but has thereafter been listed only today. The matter was to be listed before the court on November 18, 2005 but has thereafter been listed only today. However, the office has made a report that the other C.W.P. No. 1018 of 2005 (Gopal Granite & Marble v. State of Rajasthan) had been decided on November 8, 2006. On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition essentially stands concluded in view of the notification dated April 11, 2007 whereby the State Government decided to delete the said condition under clause 4(e)(i) of the Incentive Scheme with retrospective effect from March 21, 1987, i.e., the date of commencement of the Scheme; and, therefore, maintenance of average production no longer remained a condition necessary to be fulfilled. It has also been pointed out that in respect of the corresponding demand under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 also, the Department has issued circular on October 1, 2007 writing off such demands which were raised because of the alleged violation of the said clause 4(e)(i) of the Scheme. The learned counsel further pointed out that noticing the said notification and circular, this court has allowed a cognate matter in S.B.C. W.P. No. 3995 of 2005 : Tripura Cement Limited v. State of Rajasthan, decided on February 5, 2008; and has set aside a similar-nature demand. It is observed from the decision as rendered by this court in Tripura Cement Limited (S.B.C. W.P. No. 3995 of 2005 decided on February 5, 2008), that the relevant notifications have been quoted in extenso; and for the counsel for the Revenue not disputing the position that case of the said petitioner was covered by the said notification, the assessment orders were set aside. By the notification dated April 11, 2007, the said condition (i) of sub-clause (e) in the Scheme has been deleted with effect from May 23, 1987 and then, in terms of the letter dated September 19, 2007 issued by the Secretary to the Government in its Finance Department, whereby the Commissioner was authorised to write off the Central sales tax demand created on account of non-compliance of the condition under clause 4(e)(i) of the Scheme, by the order dated October 1, 2007, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes has proceeded to lay down the procedure for writing off such demands whereby the assessing authority is required to certify the demand created on account of such clause 4(e)(i) and the same being outstanding and that the case is fit for writing off as per the letter dated September 19, 2007; and then, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) is to verify the facts and certify that the case is fit to be written off. It is not in dispute that the case of the present petitioner is also squarely covered by the aforesaid notification and the circular. In view of the said notification and circular and the decision of this court in Tripura Cement Limited (S.B.C. W.P. No. 3995 of 2005 decided on February 5, 2008), the indisputable position is that the impugned order dated March 8, 2004 and any proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and thereafter, particularly in creating demand against the petitioner for violation of clause 4(e)(i) of the Scheme, have become redundant. However, for clarification, such impugned orders and notices deserve to be quashed and set aside following the decision in Tripura Cement Limited's case (S.B.C. W.P. No. 3995 of 2005 decided on February 5, 2008). Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated March 8, 2004 (annexure 6) and the subsequent order dated July 21, 2004 (annexure 16) and the assessment order dated April 20, 2005 (annexure 18) and the related demand notices insofar they relate to recovery of the amount of sales tax with reference to clause 4(e)(i) of the Scheme are quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.