Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri U.K. Pandey learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri B.K. Pandey, has appeared for the assessee.
(2.) ALL these revisions pertain to the same assessee. They are based upon similar facts and purports to raise a common question of law as to whether the Tribunal is justified in refunding the amount which was not deposited by the dealer himself but by his agent with the return in view of section 42(4) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The assessee was granted exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the said exemption was applicable when the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was enforced.
(3.) ON behalf of the assessee the net tax payable was deposited along with the return of the tax submitted in the prescribed manner. The assessee in view of exemption granted under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 claimed refund of the said amount under section 42(4) of the Act. The refund so claimed by the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated September 7, 2012.;