JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present Trade Tax Revision has been filed, interalia, praying for setting-aside the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal.
2. By the said order dated 3.3.2006, the Trade Tax Tribunal, interalia, directed that in case, the applicant submits a cash security of Rs. 1,29,300/-, the goods may be released in favour of the applicant.
3. By the order dated 4.4.2006, the present Trade Tax Revision was admitted, and notice was directed to be issued.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party, was granted three weeks' time for filing Counter Affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit was directed to be filed by the next date fixed in the matter.
5. The Trade Tax Revision was directed to be listed for hearing on 9.5.2006.
6. Pursuant to the said order dated 4.4.2006, Civil Misc. Application No. 100608 of 2006 along with Counter Affidavit, sworn on 4.5. 2006, was filed on behalf of the opposite party on 5.5.2006 after serving copies thereof on the learned Counsel for the applicant.
7. No Rejoinder Affidavit has so far been filed on behalf of the applicant in reply to the said Counter Affidavit.
8. Pursuant to the order dated 17.8.2006, the case is listed peremptorily today.
9. The case has been taken-up in the revised list. However, the learned Counsel for the applicant is not present.
10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party is present.
11. As the case is listed peremptorily today, the Court is proceeding to take-up the matter, and pass appropriate orders.
12. In the aforementioned Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, it is stated in paragraph No. 3 and its sub-paragraphs Nos. (A),(B), (C) and (D), as follows:
3. That before giving para-wise reply to the revision petition it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the following facts are brought to the notice of this Hon'ble High Court.
(A) That after the goods having been detained the Tribunal vide order dated 3.3.2006 has directed for release of the goods after depositing a cash security of Rs. 1,29,300/-
(B) That the said amount of security of Rs. 1,29,300/- has been deposited by the dealer on 25.4.2006 and thereafter the goods have been released.
(C) That the said amount of security has been realized from the dealer to secure the amount of penalty leviable under Section 15A(1)(O) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
(D) That now the case on merit will have to be judge in the penalty proceedings likely to be initiated soon. Hence for all practical purpose the present revision petition has become infructuous because it is settled law of this hence that any findings recorded in the seizure proceedings are tentative findings and the case was on merit will have to be judge on merit by the assessing authority Under Section 15A(1)(O) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, without being prejudice with a findings recorded by the Trade Tax Tribunal.
13. As noted above, no Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant in reply to the said Counter Affidavit. Therefore, the averments made in the above-quoted paragraph No. 3 and its sub-para Nos. (A),(B),(C) and (D) of the Counter Affidavit, remain uncontroverted.
14. In view of the said averments, it is evident that the applicant has deposited the amount of security of Rs. 1,29,300/-, as directed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in its order dated 3.3.2006, and thereafter, the goods have been released in favour of the applicant.
15. In view of this, the Trade Tax Revision has evidently become infructuous.
16. The Trade Tax Revision is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.