ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of notification dated 20.1.2006 (Annexure 3) as published in the gazette dated 24.1.2006 issued under Section 49(2) of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981. By the said notification sugar mills of Bihar have been granted exemption from payment of purchase tax in respect of crushing years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 under the said Act. The petitioner challenged that limiting this exemption to sugar mills of Bihar is discriminatory and arbitrary inasmuch as the petitioner though situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh is under obligation to make purchase of its substantial requirement of sugarcane from Bihar itself as per orders made in its favour by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar. 2. It is submitted that in terms of Section 49(1) a tax known as purchase tax is enforced on purchase of sugarcane by sugar factory. Sub-section (2) thereof authorizes the Government to reduce or remit in whole or in part such tax under contingencies mentioned therein and includes to encourage intake of excessive crops. It is submitted that this general exemption in favour of the Bihar Sugar Mills is not relatable to either of the clauses of Section 49(2)(a) and is relatable only to intake of excessive crops. In that respect no distinction can be made and the distinction, if sought to be made, was unreal and hostile. 3. The petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court on identical issue, being C.W.J.C. Nos. 4120 and 4121 of 1987, which were allowed by judgment dated 8th November, 1990. The said writ petitions were filed by the petitioner, as it then was known and was challenging the identical notification issued under the same Act in respect of the year 1981-82. The writ applications, after detailed consideration, were allowed and the notification in so far as it restricts the exemption to Bihar Sugar Mills alone was set aside. The effect was that the notification became a general notification granting general exemption and applicable to all sugar mills, who were purchasing sugarcane in Bihar. Pratappur Sugar & Industries Ltd. consequently became entitled to exemption for the present apart from tile year changing and the name changing, which has now become Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd. from Pratappur Sugar & Industries Ltd., the rest of the facts are same. 4. Pratappur Sugar & Industries Ltd. consequently became entitled to exemption for the present apart from tile year changing and the name changing, which has now become Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd. from Pratappur Sugar & Industries Ltd., the rest of the facts are same. 4. Learned counsel for the State when confronted with this could not distinguish the case either on facts or in law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 6. As noticed above, no distinguish could be made between the facts as emanated in the writ petition decided earlier by a Division Bench of this Court and the present case. 7. In that view of the matter, the judgment applies to the facts of the present case on all force and therefore, I have no option but to set aside the impugned notification, as contained in Annexure 3 to the extent it restricts exemption to Bihar Sugar Mills. The exemption would thus be available to all sugar mills, who are purchasing sugar cane in Bihar and when in absence of the same notification be liable to pay purchase tax under the Sales Tax. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed and consequently the demand notices, as being sought to be enforced, for the period, in question, are also set aside.