JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Petitioner admittedly has greed to pay fixed amount of trade tax under Government Order dated 03.11.2014 implementing settlement scheme for Brick Kiln Season 2014-15 which was effective for the period of 01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015 but subsequently has resiled from payment of revenue on the ground that for certain reasons, beyond his control, he could not run Brick Kiln and, therefore, tax liable should be waived. 3. This question, whether liability can be denied subsequently for any reason once agreement for payment of tax under composition scheme has been admitted by assessee and same become binding upon parties, has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in M/s Bhadauria Gram Sewa Sansthan, Fatehpur Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Allahabad and others, 2006 UPTC 538 and it has been held that once such an agreement has been entered into between parties, it is binding on both and no estopple or any other principle of administrative law or otherwise can help assessee to wriggle out from said liability under composition scheme. In paras 34 to 37 of judgment this Court has said: "34. Clause 19 of the scheme under which the petitioner had applied for composition, specifically provided that if the firing is started late or is not commenced or, for any other reason, the amount of composition money would neither be reduced nor changed. Thus, from the provision of Section 7-D of the Act as also the scheme announced thereunder, we are of the considered opinion that the liability for payment of tax is dependent upon the agreement entered into by the parties and the amount so agreed would continue to be payable by the dealer notwithstanding the fact that the dealer has neither manufactured nor sold any bricks during the period for which it had opted for the composition under Section 7-D of the Act. 35. The amount payable under the composition scheme is not relatable to any actual turnover but depends upon the agreement under the scheme at the option of the dealer. The dealer having once exercised its option, cannot, therefore, be permitted to turn around and resile from its liability merely on the ground that had had no turnover or had not done any manufacturing activity during the relevant year. 36. The dealer having once exercised its option, cannot, therefore, be permitted to turn around and resile from its liability merely on the ground that had had no turnover or had not done any manufacturing activity during the relevant year. 36. So far as the decisions and the dictionary meaning of the words "in lieu of" relied upon by Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, are concerned, we may mention that it is of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as here the amount of tax is being demanded in terms of the composition scheme which the petitioner had opted. 37. There cannot be any dispute that there cannot be any estoppel against a statute. However, where the demand is being made under the terms of the contract which specifically provides that there would be no reduction or change in the composition money even if the firing has not been done in brick kiln or it has been started late or for any other reason, the petitioner is bound by the said clause and he cannot be permitted to challenge the same in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Har Shanker and others, Narain Prasad and others and Bharathi Knitting Co. (supra). As we have already come to the conclusion that the liability to pay the composition money is not relatable to actual sales at all, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. (supra) will not be attracted." 4. When questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute aforesaid exposition of law. 5. In view thereof prayer made by petitioner that respondents be restrained from realizing tax from petitioner for Assessment Year 2014-15 and waive tax amount, cannot be accepted. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. 6. Dismissed.