JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. - Heard Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri N. R. Kumar, learned counsel for the dealer. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1994-95. The following questions of law have been sought to be raised by means of this revision : "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to allow the exemption on the sale made by the appellant through air force canteen in view of the Notification No. 978 dated March 31, 1994 which contemplates the provisions of the exemption only to sale against the authority of law issued by the U.P. States Employees Welfare Corporation to State Government employees and ex-employees ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly allowed the exemption on the sale made through air force canteen in view of the Notification No. 978 dated March 31, 1994 ?" The dealer is involved in the business of sale and purchase of scooter, scooter parts and accessories, etc. It had also made certain sale to the U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation and for such sale it had claimed exemption from trade tax. The assessing officer by order dated July 25, 1996 allowed the exemption of trade tax only against sale made through the Corporation to the State Government employees. It further disallowed the exemption with regard to the sale made through the air force canteen and accordingly imposed the tax. The dealer preferred appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated December 5, 1996 on the ground that it was past practice that exemption was granted to sale made through the air force canteen. Against the same, department preferred the second appeal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated April 6, 2002 again on the same reasons as it has been a practice in the past the payment of tax on sale made through the canteen was not warranted. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the Notification No. ST-II-978/ST-94-7(103)/91-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-94 dated March 31, 1994 and has submitted that the exemption is provided only with regard to sale effected through U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation in favour of the State Government Employees and retired employees. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the Notification No. ST-II-978/ST-94-7(103)/91-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-94 dated March 31, 1994 and has submitted that the exemption is provided only with regard to sale effected through U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation in favour of the State Government Employees and retired employees. According to him the said notification does not provide for any exemption with regard to sale made through air force canteen or employees other than those of the State Government. Sri N. R. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the dealer has placed reliance upon the Government Notification No. S.T.-2-7037/X-7(23)/83 - U.P. Act XV/48 - Order-85 dated January 31, 1985 and has referred to entry No. 18 and its sub-clauses (a) and (b). This entry provides for sale to or purchase and sales of any goods by canteen stores department/military canteens or U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation to the officers and members of the Armed Force of India/other Defence Establishment/Ex-servicemen would be exempted from trade tax. Entry 18 further includes a list of goods which are not to be sold through the U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation. For sake of convenience entry 18 of the said notification along with relevant part of the list is reproduced below : SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Serial Description of goods/persons/class Conditions, if any No. of persons ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 to 17 ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 Sales to or purchases and On condition that it is certified by - sales by - (a) an officer not below the rank of Commanding (a) Canteen stores Officer or, as the case may be, department/military (b) the Executive Director, or an officer not canteens, or below the rank of Deputy Director duly (b) U.P. Government authorised by him, that the goods are meant Employees Welfare for being sold to - Corporation, of all (a) members of the Armed Forces of India/other goods, other than defence establishment/ex-servicemen, those specified in the (b) employees and ex-employees of the State list below - Government. LIST (1) to (9) .... (10) Motor trucks, motor buses, motor cycle combinations, motor cars, jeeps and other motor vehicles, excluding motor cycles, motor scooters and motorettes (mopeds). (11) ... LIST (1) to (9) .... (10) Motor trucks, motor buses, motor cycle combinations, motor cars, jeeps and other motor vehicles, excluding motor cycles, motor scooters and motorettes (mopeds). (11) ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From a perusal of serial No. 10 of the list it is clear that motor cycles, motor scooters and mopeds would be covered under the exemption clause if sold through the corporation to the defence personnel and members of the armed forces. This motor scooter being covered by the said list can be sold tax-free through U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation to the members of the armed force. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct although reasons recorded by it may be different. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions made above, the dealer is entitled to exemption of trade tax upon sale of motor scooters and accessories sold to the defence employees. Revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.