B. K. Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.M.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjiv Sankhdhar, learned counsel for the opposite party. Admit on the following questions of law. (i) Whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the appeal without considering the issue and discussing the relevant facts and materials involved in the case and the grounds taken in memo of appeal? (ii) Whether the judgment of the Trade Tax Tribunal can be said to be valid and legal inspite of there being no decision based on relevant material and the arguments raised? (iii) Whether the judgment of the Trade Tax Tribunal can be said to be judgment in the eye of law when it has not discussed he facts involved, nor given its own reason to come to a conclusion? (iv) Whether the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal can be said to have taken a harsh view when if the requisite forms were deposited though after the order passed by the assessing authority but having given the valid reasons which were not controverted by the department? (v) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have taken a liberal view in taking a decision as held in case of M/s Hindon River Mills Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., reported in 2008 NTN (Vol. 37) page 149? Notice on behalf of the opposite party has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Summon the record. List after receipt of the record. Until further orders of this Court, the operation and execution of the order dated 27.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner /Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 325 of 2008 shall remain stayed provided the applicant furnishes security other than cash and bank guarantee for the balance amount of disputed tax to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority within four weeks from today.;