Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the legality and validity of the Tribunal's order dated February 7, 2000, the present revision is at the instance of the Department.
(2.) THE Tribunal by the order under revision passed in Second Appeal No. 80 of 1998 relevant to the assessment year 1994 -95 (U.P.) allowed the appeal in part filed before it by the dealer -opposite party and remanded the matter to the assessing authority with a direction to examine form IIIB Nos. 175965 and 034704 and counterfoil of form No. 87566. It has been further provided that on verification of all these forms their benefits should be extended to the dealer -opposite party. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, is aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal to a limited extent. The submission is that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the counterfoil of form IIIB (form No. 87566). With regard to the rest, no grievance was raised by the learned Standing Counsel during the course of the hearing.
(3.) IN the memo of the revision the following three questions of law sought to have been raised: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to direct the assessing authority to accept the counterfoil of form III -B and to allow the exemption on that basis? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal for accepting the counterfoil of the form HI -B is correct in the eyes of law and in the light of the judgment of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Automobiles P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi . (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is legally correct in view of the provisions of Section 4B and Rule 25B(15) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules?;