R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) Aggrieved against the order dated 21st May, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee has preferred the present revision. During the said assessment year the assessee carried on foodgrains business. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that in regard to sales of Rs. 1,11,033. 80 although forms C were not available yet he is liable to pay sales tax at the net rate of 4 per cent only. He submits that in the absence of forms C the Tribunal is technically right in holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax on such sales at the rate of 8 per cent but since under the provision of section 29-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Act reimbursement is also permissible on the sale of such goods at the rate of 4 per cent, it should be held that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax on the sales of such goods at a net balance rate of 4 per cent. I am afraid that this matter cannot be gone into by this Court because provision of section 29-B contemplates a separate application to be made in writing by the assessee to the assessing authority in this regard and a procedure for the same has also been prescribed under the law. It is always open to the assessee to make such an application and claim adjustment of the amount which is due to him under the law. Therefore, this submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee so far as the present revision is concerned lacks substance. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that no proper opportunity was given by the Tribunal in regard to submission of forms C for the turnover of Rs. 9,926. 10. It has been asserted that an oral request in that regard was made to the Tribunal by the assessee, which was not acceded by the Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not show that any such request was made by the assessee to the Tribunal, nor any affidavit in this regard has been filed on behalf of the assessee in this case. In this situation the said assertion made by the learned counsel for the assessee is not borne out from the impugned order. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the assessee in this regard. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is with regard to upholding the liability of the assessee for payment of interest as a dispute raised by the assessee in this regard was pending. He contended that in view of a decision of this Court in the case of Capital Packers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1989] 75 STC 42; (1988) ATJ 990, the assessee is liable to pay interest only from the date of assessment and not from the date of submission of returns as contended by the department. Since this question regarding giving benefits in this regard has not been gone into by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the impugned order so far as this aspect is concerned is set aside with directions to rehear the appeal and record a finding in that regard. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part as per directions made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .;