JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred ot as 'Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 17th November, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1985-86.
2. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of food grains, oil seed, pulses etc. It appears that several ex-parte assessment orders were passed, which were reopened under Section 30 of the Act. The last assessment order, from which dispute arise was the order dated 21st March, 1991 Against this order, appeal No. 60 of 1991 was filed, which was decided on 25th November, 1991. In appeal ex-parte assessment order dated 21st March, 1991 was set aside and the matter was remanded hack to the assessing authority with the direction to pass the assessment order afresh. Against the said order, dealer filed appeal beiore the Tribunal. Tribunal by the order dated 14th February, 1997 stayed the operation of the order dated 25th November, 1991. It appears that the assessing authority passed the assessment order on 27th March, 1996 in pursuance of the order of the first appellate authority dated 25th November, 1991 passed in appeal No. 60 of 1991 before the order of the Tribunal dated 14th February, 1997 staying the operation of the order Appeal No. 148 of 1992 filed against the order dated 25th November, 1991 was dismissed on 30th December, 1997 and alter the dismissal of the order by the Tribunal, assessing authority again passed the assessment order on 3rd September, 1998, Against the assessment order dated 3rd September, 1998, dealer tiled appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 3rd July, 1999 and against the said order appeal no 831 of 1999 was filed. The said appeal has been decided by the impugned order, Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the assessment order dated 3rd September, 1998, Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 27th March, 1996, which was passed in pursuance of the appellate order dated 25th November, 1991 was prior to the order of the Tribunal dated 14th February, 1997 staying the operation of the order and, therefore, was a valid order and the subsequent order dated 3rd September, 1998 was not a valid order. It may be mentioned here that against the assessment order dated 27th March, 1996 appeal No. 357 of 1996 has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and against the said order second appeal No. 1150 of 1999 was filed, Appeal No. 1150 of 1999 has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 26th May, 2000. This order of the Tribunal was impugned in Trade Tax Revision No. 868 of 2000, filed by the dealer. Tribunal by this order has allowed the appeal in part and estimated the suppressed turn over of ainchur at Rs. 30,000/- and suppressed turn over of grain and oil seed at Rs. 7,50,000/-.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties
4. Since the common tacts and law are involved in both the revisions therefore, the same are being disposed of by common order.
5. I do not find any error in the order dated 17th November, 1999 in which assessment order dated 27th March, 1996 has been held as a valid order and the subsequent order dated 3rd September, 1998 has been held as invalid order. In fact, order dated 27th March, 1996 was passed prior to 14th February, 1997 in pursuance of the appellate order dated 25th November, 1991. During the subsistence of the order dated 27th March. 1996 winch was validly passed, there was no justification to pass the order dated 3rd September. 1998 on the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly set aside the order dated 3rd September 1998 Tribunal has estimated the turn over on the basis of the material on reword, which can not be said to be arbitrary or unjustified
6. In the result, both the revisions fails and are accordingly, dismissed.