Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Though the present revision was admitted without reference to any question of law, it has been heard on the following question of law: "Whether upon subsequent acceptance of compounding for the A.Y. 2001-02, the assessee became entitled to apply for compounding for the A.Y. 2002-03 though on the date of initial rejection of his application for compounding for that year, he was in arrears of compounding fee for the A.Y. 2001-02 ?"
(3.) The present revision arises for the A.Y. 2002-03. The assessee had operated a brick kiln in that assessment year. Under the instruction issued by the state government under Section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, popularly known as the compounding scheme for the A.Y. 2002-03, dated 08.01.2003, the assessee made an application to be admitted to the benefit of that scheme. It also appears that earlier the assessee had made a similar application to be admitted to the benefit of the compounding scheme for the A.Y. 2001-02. However, there were certain defaults in payment of instalments under that compounding application. Then, under the compounding scheme for the A.Y. 2002-03, under Clause 3, a negative condition had been prescribed being that an applicant would not be eligible for compounding for the A.Y. 2002-03 if he had not cleared the default together with interest towards compounding fee for the earlier assessment year. To this extent, there is no dispute or challenge raised by the assessee.;