JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 24.05.2004.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant has established a new unit in the year 1991 for the manufacturing of bread. Production was started on 26.04.1991 and the first sale was made on 27.04.1991. Applicant filed an application on 03.07.1991 under Section 4-A of the Act for claiming the exemption on the turn over of manufactured product. It appears that the company bad gone under litigation under the Indian Companies Act and unit was closed between July 1994 to 22.10.2002 It appears that the exemption application of the applicant was rejected on 18.12.1995 by the Divisional Level Committee. According to the applicant information for the rejection of the application was not communicated by the Divisional Level Committee. Assessment orders were passed ex-parte by the assessing authority for the assessment years 1991-92 and 92-93 on 29.02.1996 and for the assessment year 1993-94 on 24.01.1997. In the assessment order it appears that the fact about the rejection of the exemption application on 18.12.1995 was mentioned. Assessment orders for the assessment years 1991-92 and 92-93 were served on 09.04.1996 and for the assessment year 1993-94 on 06.02.1997. However, applicant sought certified copy of the order dated 28.12.1995 passed by Divisional Level Committee. Assessing authority provided the certified copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 on 28.02.2003 to the applicant. Applicant filed review application on 01.05.2003. Review application was rejected as barred by limitation. Applicant filed the appeal before the Tribunal, which has also been rejected.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no communication about the rejection of the exemption application on 18.12.1995 by the Divisional Level Committee. He submitted that though it is not disputed that the certified copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 was provided on 28.02.2003 but that was not sufficient, in as much as the applicant further moved an application before the Divisional Level Committee on 26.03.2003, in which it was requested to inform about the exact fate of the application. It was also requested to certify the copy of the order obtained from the Trade Tax Authorities, Ghaziabad for necessary action. Thereafter, vide letter dated 01.04.2003 Additional Director of Industries has confirmed that the copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 was sent at the manufacturing place by registered post, which was returned back and the certified copy, which has been obtained from the office of the Trade Tax Department is correct and has been issued by their office. According to the applicant receipt of the information about the order dated 18.12.1995 should be considered as on 01.04.2003, which is the date of the letter of Additional Director of Industries. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Panna Lal v. Murari Lal, reported in 1967 SC, 1384. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of Tribunal.
5. I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
6. The provisions for filing the review application is Rule 25 (3)(C) of the Rules, which reads as follows:
"If application of unit is rejected such unit may submit application for review to the same committee, within 30 days of the receipt of information of such rejection. The said committee after examining the relevant records and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the unit of being heard, shall decide the review application."
7. Question for consideration is that when the applicant has received the information of the rejection of application. Tribunal held that the applicant received the information on 28.02.2003 when the certified copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 was provided and from that date the review application should have been filed by 03.03.2003 while it was filed on 01.05.2003, which was beyond time and, therefore, review application was not maintainable. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant has no substance. When the copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 was provided by the assessing authority on 28.02.2003, which is not in dispute, applicant came to know about the order. The fact that certified copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 has been received, has been acknowledged in the letter dated 26.03.2003. After receiving the certified copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 by which the exemption application was rejected, applicant has unnecessarily vide application dated 26.03.2003 requested to inform about the fate of the application. This prayer was meaningless; therefore, no benefit can be derived from the application dated 26.03.2003. In this view of the matter review application being filed beyond thirty days, was not maintainable as review application under Rule 25-(B)(c). The decision of the Apex Court cited by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Panna Lal Murari Lal (Supra) is not applicable to the present case. In the said case the information received was vague but same is not the position here. In the present case certified copy of the order dated 18.12.1995 by which exemption application under Section 4-A of the Act was rejected was provided on 28.12.2003 and, therefore, receipt of information was specific beyond doubt.
8. In a recent decision Apex Court in the case of CTT v. Dhampur Sugar Mill, Bijnor, reported in 2005 AIR, SC Weekly cases, 106 held that the application filed beyond the period of thirty days is not a review application and is not maintainable. In the circumstances, revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.