IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL S.T.R. No. 64 of 2001 (Old No. 1128/ 1994) M/s Nav Bharat Rice Mills Kichha, District Nainital …………..Applicant/Revisionist Vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P. Almora …………Opposite Party None present for the Revisionsit. Shri Pitamber Maulekhi, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is received by transfer from Allahabad High Court, under Section 35 of U.P. Reoganisation Act, 2000. 2. The revision was preferred by the assessee under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, against the order dated 24.02.1994, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haldwani, in Second Appeal No. 261 of 1993 and 262 of 1993. 3. Heard Shri Pitambar Maulekhi, learned Advocate General, for the respondent. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist, even after notice issued by this Court and served on the revisionist. 4. The revision, parties to the assessment year 1977-78. From the record, it appears that on 31.12.1981, an assessment order was passed under Section 7(3) by the Sales Tax Officer, Haldwani, against the assessee/revisionist, imposing the sum of Rs. 1,442/- as tax on the imported goods, for which recovery certificate was issued. However, later on penalty proceedings under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was also initiated for non-payment of said amount of Rs. 1,442/-. The assessee appears to have challenged the recovery of the tax on the ground that the same was barred by time under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. However the Assessing Authority has already stayed the proceedings under Rule 41 (7) on the basis of Allahabad High Court’s order dated 29.10.1980, passed in writ petition No. 593 of 1980. 5. In the circumstances, impugned order passed by the tribunal, whereby the cases were recommended to the Assistant Commissioner, (Judicial) to decide the appeal afresh, suffers from no illegality. The revision is accordingly dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 02.09.2005 Sweta