RAJES KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23rd September. 2004. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the applicant had established a new unit for the manufacturing of C. I. Casting in the year, 1999. Production was started on 18. 08. 1999 and the first sale was made on 06. 09. 1999. According to the applicant, application under Section 4-A of the Act for the exemption on the turnover of the manufactured goods was filed in the office of General manager. District Industries Center, Agra which was duly acknowledged by the staff of the office on 8th February, 2000. Filing of the application on 8th February, 2000 is in dispute. According to the Divisional Level Committee, application was filed on 04. 12. 2000. Said application was processed and eligibility certificate was issued treating the applicant unit as a new unit and exemption has been granted as contemplated under the notification. Exemption was however, granted with effect from 04. 12. 2000 as against the claim of the applicant from 06. 09. 1999. the date of first sale. According to the applicant application was filed on 08th february, 2000 within six months from the date of first sale and. therefore, the application was within time and the exemption should be allowed from 06. 09. 1999. Against the said order, applicant filed a review application under Rule 25 (3) (c) of the Rules. Review application was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee vide order dated 05. 10. 2002. Against the said order applicant filed appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. Trade Tax Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Divisional Level Committee with certain directions to make the enquiry. The Divisional Level Committee has not accepted the claim of the applicant and vide order dated 26th June, 2003 again rejected the review application. Applicant filed appeal against the order dated 23rd June. 2004 before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide assessment order dated 23rd september, 2004 rejected the appeal. The Divisional Level Committee has not accepted the claim of the applicant and vide order dated 26th June, 2003 again rejected the review application. Applicant filed appeal against the order dated 23rd June. 2004 before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide assessment order dated 23rd september, 2004 rejected the appeal. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the Divisional Level Committee has not made enquiry in accordance to the direction given by the Tribunal and without doubting the receipt, signature of the person acknowledging the application on 08th February, 2000 made out a new case that the application for exemption was issued by the department on 09. 02. 2000 and as such the applicant could not made application for exemption on 08th February, 2000. He submitted that the Tribunal has also upheld the order of the Divisional Level Committee illegally. He submitted that before the Tribunal, an affidavit of Nand Lal Bhargava was filed which has not been considered. In substance, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that without making any enquiry and disputing the acknowledgement of the application on 08th february, 2000, the claim of the applicant has been illegally rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that after the remand of the case, General Manager, District Industries centre, Mahamaya Nagar wrote a letter no. 437 dated 10. 06. 2003 to the Additional Director of industries, Agra stating that the application was entitled for exemption from 06. 09. 1999 instead of 04. 12. 2000 which has not been considered. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal. ( 5 ) I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. ( 6 ) IN my view the order of the Tribunal and the Divisional Level Committee are not sustainable. Tribunal while remanding back the case vide order dated 09. 05. 2003 made following directions. "after having given thought to the submissions of the Id. Counsel for the appellant and the Id. DC/sr, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Tribunal while remanding back the case vide order dated 09. 05. 2003 made following directions. "after having given thought to the submissions of the Id. Counsel for the appellant and the Id. DC/sr, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is found out that the representation of the appellant has not been properly investigated at the stage of the d. L. C. simply saying that the signature on the receipt does not appear to be of any member of the staff of G. M. DIC, is not enough on the point in issue. The G. M. , DIC should have verified the fact about the date of presentation of application from the relevant records. This may be the Register kept for the purpose of receiving Dak in the office. There may also be a separate register for receipt of such applications under Section 4-A of the Act. Normally it is not possible that in respect of such matters, the procedure in the office of GM, DIC would be so irregular or in haphazard manner. At no stage the receipt presented by the appellant has been disputed. This receipt is admittedly from the office of G. M. DIC. Hathras. In respect of the signature only a doubt has been expressed. The G. M. should enquire from the dealing clerk or should have made proper inquiry about the signature of the person, who has signed the receipt of the application of the appellant. Without this inquiry the conclusions cannot be accepted. On the receipt there is also seal of G. M. , D. I. C. Hathras. Nothing has been stated in this respect. In official matters the seal and signature go together. In case of dispute both signature and seal had to be taken into consideration for arriving at proper conclusion. There is one more point of consideration in respect of this receipt. It has eight columns dealing with different documents filed with the application under Section 4-A of the Act. There is a tick ( )or cross (x) mark in respect of documents on 10 points. On 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th, there is tick ( ) mark showing that the documents mentioned in these columns have been received with the application under Section 4-A of the Act. At column No. 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 there are cross (x) mark. On 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th, there is tick ( ) mark showing that the documents mentioned in these columns have been received with the application under Section 4-A of the Act. At column No. 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 there are cross (x) mark. This means that the documents referred in these columns were not accompanying the application under Section 4-A of the Act. How such selections could be made until and unless the dealing clerk checked up the alleged application of the appellant and made endorsement of tick and cross, as stated above. Below the signature there is clear date of 8. 2. 2000. Even otherwise we find no reason as to why the dealer would delay presentation of the application for exemption in tax to his prejudice. There is already two occasions for the appellant for completing the deficiency in this application. At the stage of DLC there is 60 days time for scrutiny and for bringing the application in order. There is still 60 days time for compliance of the objections raised by the G. M. DIC. Thus from the aforesaid discussion it is concluded that the DLC has not properly probed the matter of the date of presentation of application under Section 4-A of the Act. This date is very important because of exemption in tax may be delayed if it is not presented with the specified time from the date of start of production. About such an important date the matter cannot be taken so lightly as appears to have been taken by the D. L. C. A thorough inquiry in the matter is very necessary to reject dealers contention that the application under Section 4-A of the Act was not presented on 8. 2. 2000. Heavy burden is upon the D. L. C to reject the contention of the appellant particular on the basis of the receipt which was presented by the appellant before it and also before us. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is to be allowed and the order of D. L. C. in respect of the date of presentation of the application under Section 4-A of the Act has to be set aside. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is to be allowed and the order of D. L. C. in respect of the date of presentation of the application under Section 4-A of the Act has to be set aside. " ( 7 ) IN substance, direction of the Tribunal was that thorough enquiry in the matter was necessary to reject the contention of the applicant that the application under Section 4-A of the Act was not presented on 08. 02. 2000. It was held that heavy burden was upon the Divisional Level committee to reject the contention of the appellant particularly on the basis of the receipt which was presented by the appellant before it and also before the Tribunal. Perusal of the orders of the divisional Level Committee and the Tribunal shows that the plea of applicant that application was filed on 08. 02. 2000 was rejected on the ground that as per the register, application Form No. 10583 was purchased by Sri A. K. Saxena for the applicant on 09. 02. 2000, therefore, the filing of the application on 08th February. 2000 could not be believed. In my view, when the applicant has filed an acknowledgement slip which bears a signature and date 08. 02. 2000 then it has to be inquired, whether signature and date were genuine or not. If it is found to be genuine, the other considerations are wholly irrelevant. If the Divisional Level Committee is of the view that the acknowledgement of the application on 08th February, 2000 cannot be believed, then they have to make out a case that acknowledgement slip was fraudulently issued on 08th February, 2000 or it is non-genuine, but no such case has been made out till date. If the record shows that the form was sold on 9th February, 2000, it may be one of the reason to doubt the filing of the application on 08th February, 2000, but there may be case that the form may have been issued earlier, but in the register it may be recorded on 09th February, 2000. These are all doubtful situation. In my opinion, unless a proper enquiry is made about the genuineness of the signature and the date mentioned in the acknowledgement slip and on enquiry unless it is found that the signature is forged or has been obtained fraudulently, claim of the applicant cannot be disbelieved. These are all doubtful situation. In my opinion, unless a proper enquiry is made about the genuineness of the signature and the date mentioned in the acknowledgement slip and on enquiry unless it is found that the signature is forged or has been obtained fraudulently, claim of the applicant cannot be disbelieved. In the earlier order, Tribunal has already observed that there could not be any reason in making delay in filing the application on 04. 12. 2000 after its alleged receipt on 09. 02. 2000. If for the sake of argument if it is believed that the form was issued on 09" February, 2000, there cannot be any reason to file such form on 04. 12. 2000 allowing six months period to expire. In my opinion, matter has not been properly enquired in accordance to the directions given by the Tribunal earlier. It needs a deep enquiry and scrutiny about the date of receipt of the application which is very material and effects the right of claim of exemption for the period between 06. 09. 1999 to 04. 12. 2000 and heavy financial burden on the applicant. ( 8 ) IN the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 23rd September, 2004 and the order of the Divisional Level Committee dated 04. 06. 2004 are set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Divisional Level Committee to decide the review application afresh after making necessary enquiry referred hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. . .