Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pradeep Agrawal learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Sanjiv Sankhdhari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of learned counsels for the parties present today, the present revision is finally heard at the admission stage.
(2.) FACTS in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist are that in respect of the assessment year 2004 -05 (Central), the assessment order dated March 28, 2007 has been passed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal filed before the appellate authority, dismissed by order dated November 24, 2007.
(3.) THEREAFTER the revisionist filed a Second Appeal (Second Appeal No. 124/08 (2004 -05 Central) Sarju Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Bilraya, Kheri v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow). During the pendency of same, the revisionist received the form C on April 5, 2008. So, in order to bring the said material document on record, an application has been moved by invoking provisions as provided under section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948. By means of the order dated September 16, 2009 (annexure No. 5) the Tribunal dismissed the second appeal as well as the application moved by the revisionist under section 12B of the Act.;