JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - The present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order dated June 13, 2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty under section 10A of the Act for the alleged default of section 10(b) of the Act. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant was registered under section 7 of the Act for iron and steel and entitled to purchase iron and steel at the concessional rate after issuing form C. During the year under consideration, the dealer has purchased spring leaves (motor parts) from outside the State of U.P. for Rs. 3,49,443 and in respect thereof issued form C No. 978299. The assessing authority was of the view that applicant had issued form C for the purchases of spring leaves (motor parts) therefore there was a violation of clause (b) of section 10 of the Act and accordingly issued show-cause notice. The applicant filed reply to the show-cause notice. In reply, it was pleaded that on January 18, 2000 the applicant had given an application through UPC for the addition of spring leaves and when the application could not be disposed of, another application had been given on October 30, 2001. The assessing authority had levied the penalty on the ground that the application dated January 18, 2000 claimed to have been given through UPC is not available on record and on the basis of the application dated October 30, 2001 spring leaves had been added in the registration certificate with effect from October 30, 2001. The assessing authority, in view of the above, was of the view that the applicant had issued form C while making the purchases, though it was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of spring leave (motor parts) and accordingly on the value of Rs. 3,49,443 penalty at Rs. 52,416 was levied. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated August 19, 2002 had dismissed the appeal. 3,49,443 penalty at Rs. 52,416 was levied. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated August 19, 2002 had dismissed the appeal. Before the appellate authority also the applicant had made the same plea which was taken before the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the spring leaves falls within the item mentioned under the heading of "iron steel" as defined under section 14 of the Act. He submitted that it falls under the category of iron strips. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow passed under section 35 of the Act in which it has been held that the individual spring leave is iron and steel and not motor parts. He submitted that even though this plea had not been raised before the authorities below but being the question of law it can be raised for the first time before this court in revision. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Gurucharan Singh v. Kamla Singh reported in [1976] 2 SCC 152 paragraph 11. He submitted that since spring leave is iron steel and for the iron steel the applicant was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, therefore, no default was committed on the part of the applicant. Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the applicant had not purchased separate spring leaves but had purchased the spring leave in the form of motor parts which does not fall within the purview of iron strips. He submitted that in the penalty order it is categorically mentioned that spring leaves purchased as the motor parts. Before the assessing authority or the appellate authority the applicant had not pleaded that he purchased separate spring leaves and not the spring leaves in a consolidated form as motor parts and therefore the factual plea raised by the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage. Before the assessing authority or the appellate authority the applicant had not pleaded that he purchased separate spring leaves and not the spring leaves in a consolidated form as motor parts and therefore the factual plea raised by the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage. He submitted that the only plea taken by the applicant was that he had moved the application on January 18, 2000 for the addition of spring leaves in the registration certificate by UPC which was not accepted by the assessing authority. He submitted that the Tribunal had held that the applicant's place of business was very near to the Trade Tax Office and there was no reason why the application dated January 18, 2000 could not be filed in the office while the returns and other applications had been filed in the office and therefore, moving the application on January 18, 2000 by UPC had not been accepted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and authorities below. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. In the present case, penalty order clearly reveals that the dealer had purchased spring leaves (motor parts). Spring leaves have not been separately and individually purchased as iron strips. It was not the case of the dealer before the assessing authority or before any of the authority that it had purchased spring leaves individually in the form of iron strips and not in the form of motor parts. Thus, in the absence of factual plea being taken the claim of the dealer that the spring leaves purchased by the dealer was iron steel cannot be accepted. There is no dispute that the legal question or the question which involves jurisdiction can be raised before the appellate authority or before the court of law but for such question there should be a factual foundation and facts are not in dispute. In the present case, it was not pleaded that spring leaves were purchased individually in the form of iron strips. Before the assessing authority, before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal the applicant had pleaded that it had moved an application on January 18, 2000 for the addition of spring leaves in the registration certificate by UPC which had not been accepted by all the authorities. Before the assessing authority, before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal the applicant had pleaded that it had moved an application on January 18, 2000 for the addition of spring leaves in the registration certificate by UPC which had not been accepted by all the authorities. Admittedly, in the registration certificate, spring leaves was added with effect from October 30, 2001. Prior to this date, the dealer was not registered for the spring leaves (motor parts). Thus, knowing that it was not registered for spring leaves (motor parts) it had issued form C in respect thereof which amounts to violation of clause (b) of section 10 of the Act. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rashid reported in 2006 AIR SCW 162 the apex court held that the certificate of posting has little assistance because post office does not keep any record and it is being misused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.