- (1.) HEARD Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rohit Agrawal on behalf of the revisionist -company and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the department.
(2.) THE revisionist -company filed an application under Section 4 -A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (here -in -after referred to as 'Act of 1948') for grant of exemption certificate before the Divisional Level committee at Moradabad. This application came to be rejected by an order dated 2nd February, 1999. The revisionist therefore made a review application under Rule 25 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. The review application was heard and decided by means of a reasoned order dated 9th January, 2002. The revisionist filed second review application on 5th March, 2002, which was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee vide order dated 19th February, 2003 after recording that the second review application is not maintainable.
(3.) THE revisionist thereafter filed an appeal under Section 10 of the 'Act of 1948' only against the order dated 2nd February, 1999. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of the said appeal. In the delay condonation application, the facts pertaining to filing of the first review application and the order passed therein, filing of the writ petition for disposal of the review application and the fact pertaining to filing of second review application were disclosed. It was specifically stated before the Tribunal that the orders passed on the review application are not under challenge and therefore the merits of the order rejecting the first review application dated 9th January, 2002 cannot be legally considered, as it would amount to disposal of appeal against the order dated 19th February, 2003, which is not under challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing of the appeal vide order dated 14th January, 2004. The appeal was accordingly registered as appeal no.09 of 2004.;