JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - Present eight revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 20, 2007 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Trade Tax Revision No. 1221 of 2007 for the assessment year 1993-94 is under section 22 of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and the branch office in the State of U.P. at Agra. The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales of lubricants and grease. It appears that the applicant at the end of the financial years allowed certain amounts towards sale promotion to its customer and during the course of the assessment proceeding such amounts were deducted from the total taxable turnover. The claim of the applicant was that the nature of the payment was of discount. The assessing authority has disallowed the claim of the applicant. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra allowed the appeals and accepted the claim of the applicant. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the appeals and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority for afresh assessment and adjudication. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present case the question involved is pure question of law in which no investigation of fact is required. So far as the fact is concerned, they are admitted and no further inquiry or investigation of fact is required and on the stated fact a legal decision has to be taken whether the amount paid by the applicant to the purchaser at the end of the year is liable to be deducted from the turnover under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. He submitted that the remand of the case to the assessing authority to adjudicate the issue afresh is nothing but providing a fresh innings to adjudicate the issue. He submitted that the remand of the case to the assessing authority to adjudicate the issue afresh is nothing but providing a fresh innings to adjudicate the issue. He submitted that various reasons given by the Tribunal in the order for remanding back the case are wholly irrelevant considerations. Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, relies upon the order of the Tribunal. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case may be decided independently to the cases of the earlier years as each year is an independent year for the purposes of the assessment. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the order of the Tribunal. In my view, the order of the Tribunal remanding back the case to the assessing authority for adjudication of the issue afresh is patently illegal. In the present case there is no dispute of fact. On the admitted fact it has to be decided whether the payment made by the applicant to the buyer at the end of the year is liable to be deducted from the turnover for the purposes of the assessment within the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act or not. The question involved is pure question of law and therefore to be decided by the Tribunal. In the present case no further investigation or inquiry is required to be made on fact, therefore, the remand of the case to the assessing authority is not justified. Needless to say that each year is an independent year for the purposes of the assessment and merely because one view has been taken in one assessment year it is not necessary to take the same view. The issue has to be decided independently as held by the apex court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95; [2006] 29 NTN 307. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the appeals afresh and to decide the issue involved in accordance to the law. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh.