Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) Both the contesting parties are represented and they consent to the disposal of this revision.
(3.) The following questions arise for consideration in this revision : "(a) Whether the Tribunal below ought to have considered the strong prima facie case in favour of the Revisionist in view of the inter-State nature of the transaction, Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the Specific bar contained in Section 7 of the U.P. VAT Act, the Constitution Bench Decision of the Supreme Court in Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 1, because of which no tax can be imposed on the transaction of the U.P. authorities? (b) Whether in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Income Tax Commissioner v. Commissioner Appeals [2005 (184) E.L.T. 347], followed in Honda Siel Cars v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow [2010 UPTC 1152] and Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd. v. CST [2009 UPTC 626] as well as the decision in Pennar Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2009 Vol. (39) NTN page 126] and the decision of this Court in the Revisionist's own case being T.T.R. 91 of 2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) and decision dated 3-7-2015 in T.T.R. No. 47 of 2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) and decision dated 3-5-2015 in T.T.R. No. 47 of 2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) and decision dated 30-5-2016 T.T.R. No. 70 of 2016 (A.Y. 2012-13), the Tribunal was justified in not granting complete relief to the Revisionist." ;