A. P. SINGH, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal for the applicant and Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite party. This revision is directed against the order dated September 4, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, First Bench, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 660/93 relating to the assessment year 1990-91. In brief, the fact of the case are that the applicant who is a manufacturer of electronic goods got an order from M/s. Onida Saka Limited New Delhi, for supply of certain goods to its Calcutta branch. The applicant has its factory in Noida. The goods were taken from Noida to Delhi for being transported to Calcutta for delivery to M/s. Onida Saka Electronics Private Limited. At the entry check-post goods were seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Check post, who demanded security for a sum of Rs. 1,04,500. Aggrieved by the said order of the Sales Tax Officer the applicant made appeal under section 13-A (6) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Check Post, who rejected the same. On meeting failure at the level of the Assistant Commissioner petitioner filed second appeal before the Tribunal at Agra under section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal by its order dated July 22, 1993, held that the seizure proceedings initiated against the applicant were wholly illegal inasmuch as there was no violation of the provisions of section 28-A by the applicant. It, therefore, allowed the appeal of the applicant and set aside the seizure order. However, before the matter could be decided by the Tribunal by the aforementioned order the penalty proceedings under section 15-A (1) (o) had been initiated by the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, and by order dated September 30, 1992 he imposed the penalty of Rs. 76,000 on the applicant. The applicant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, against the order of the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, where too he met with failure; therefore he filed second appeal before the Tribunal at Ghaziabad; the tribunal also rejected the appeal of the applicant by its order dated September 4, 1994 which is under challenge in this revision. It was contended by Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, that since the order of the Tribunal dated July 22, 1993, was passed at Agra, as such the same could not be filed before the Sales Tax Tribunal at Ghaziabad because of the belief that the same might have been remitted by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad and the impugned order in the revision has been passed in total ignorance of the order dated July 22, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, holding the seizure order as illegal. On that basis it is argued that seizure order is wholly illegal and question of initiating the proceedings and passing the order for imposition of penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) did not arise. It was, therefore accordingly prayed that the order of the Tribunal under challenge, which is in contradiction to the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated July 22, 1993, should be set aside and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad may be directed to redecide the applicant's appeal in the light of the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated July 22, 1993. Shri A. C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax has fairly agreed to this proposition set forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. I am also of the view that the order dated July 22, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, Holding the seizure order of the Sales Tax Officer as illegal and unwarranted under the provisions of section 28-A (1) which has become final between the parties has a great relevance for determination of legality of the penalty proceedings. The question of initiating penalty proceedings would not arise if the seizure order itself is illegal. Obviously in the present case the position is that the seizure order, which gives rise to the initiation of the penalty proceedings and the consequent passing of the penalty order is dependent on validity of the seizure. If the seizure order itself is found to be illegal and unwarranted under the provisions of section 28-A (1), the question of initiation of penalty proceedings and imposition of penalty does not at all arise. There is no doubt that the applicant should have himself filed the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated July 22, 1993, before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad which was seized of the appeal of the applicant in respect of the penalty proceedings but the applicant for some reason or the other did not file that order so as to confront the Tribunal with the order of the Tribunal, Agra dated July 22, 1993 which gave rise to this piquant situation, where the applicant is faced with two contradictory orders of Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra holding the seizure order illegal and another of Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad imposing penalty on the basis of the same seizure order, such a situation obviously is not warranted by law. Since the applicant himself is responsible for giving rise to this situation, normally the revision application should have been dismissed but seeing that its dismissal may result in simultaneous existence of two contradictory orders dated July 22, 1993 and the other which have been passed in respect of the same matter, i. e. , seizure order dated November 6, 1990, as such, the interest of justice requires that the order under challenge should be set aside. It is in this special circumstance that this revision application is allowed and the order dated September 4, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 660/93 in respect of the assessment year 1990-91 is set aside and the appeal filed by the applicant is revived which shall now be decided by the Tribunal afresh after taking into consideration the judgment of the Agra Tribunal dated July 22, 1993, a certified copy whereof shall be filed by the applicant along with a certified copy of this order, before the Tribunal, Ghaziabad, within a period of three weeks from today. The applicant shall, however, pay a sum of Rs. 500 as special costs for his lapse of not filing the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated July 22, 1993, before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad which passed the impugned order, as a result whereof this extraordinary situation had to be created. The Tribunal, Ghaziabad, shall decide the appeal only if the applicant deposits the sum of Rs. 500 as directed above. It is further directed that till the Tribunal takes its decision on the applicant's appeal, which by this order has been revived, the recovery of the penalty as per the order of the Sales Tax Officer shall not be made. On failure of applicant in compliance of the order in any manner whatsoever the order under challenge passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, shall revive and this judgment including stay of the recovery of the penalty proceedings shall become inoperative. The requisite deposit shall be made by the applicant within the said period of three weeks from today. A certified copy of this order may be made available to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition allowed. .;