- (1.) Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, advocate, holding brief of Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-revisionist and the learned standing counsel for the Department. In this revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act preferred by the assessee-revisionist against the order of the Tribunal dated November 28, 2006, the following question of law has been raised: Whether in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Anand Gramodyog Samiti v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, M.R. Soap Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Ghaziabad,1991 UPTC 517 and Modi Industries Limited v. State of U.P.,1991 UPTC 266, the order which has merged in the appellate order can be reopened under section 22 by the assessing authority ?
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that an order of assessment was passed against the assessee-revisionist on August 25, 1998 imposing tax liability of Rs. 8,73,852 for the assessment year 1993-94. The circular of the Commissioner, Trade Tax dated June 28, 1999 provided for remission of tax paid on Besan manufactured from tax-paid chana. Accordingly, the assessing authority vide order dated July 3, 1999 granted remission of Rs. 4,81,238.50 with interest thereon for the period April 1, 1993 to May 31, 1994 on turnover of besan as it was manufactured out of tax-paid chana.
(3.) The refund of the aforesaid amount was denied vide order dated November 6, 1999. The said order was assailed by the assessee-revisionist before the Trade Tax Tribunal by means of a second appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on April 19, 2002. The said order was taken in revision by the Department before the High Court and the same has ultimately been dismissed on January 22, 2010. In this way, the order of the assessing authority dated July 3, 1999 and that of the Tribunal dated April 19, 2002 have attained finality.;