ALOK MATHUR, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of revenue.
(2.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, whereby the Appeal No. 133 of 2003 has been allowed in part while the another Appeal No. 294 of 2005 for the same assessment year has been dismissed. This revision relates to the assessment year 1995-96.
(3.) The facts in brief of this case are that the revisionist is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar plant and machinery and has its head office situated at Naini, Allahabad. The revisionist firm is registered under Section 8A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1948") as well as under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.;