JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. - These three 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 July 20, 2000 relating to the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was civil contractor and was liable to tax under section 3F of the Act, on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contract. The applicant applied under the compounding scheme introduced by the State Government under section 7D of the Act for payment of one per cent tax on the amount received against the execution of the works contract. For all the aforesaid assessment years the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad accepted the application under the Compounding Scheme and passed the appropriate orders for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 on July 12, 1996, October 15, 1996 and February 26, 1998, respectively. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Ghaziabad initiated the proceedings under section 10B of the Act and held that since under the compounding scheme applications were moved beyond time, the applicant was not eligible under the compounding scheme. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), accordingly, directed the assessing authority to pass appropriate orders. Being aggrieved by the orders, the applicant filed three appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned ordered dismissed the appeals. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the reasons for the cancellation of the compounding application is that the applications were not given within the stipulated time. He submitted that by the various circulars issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax the period has been extended and even applications given beyond specified time could also be accepted. He further submitted that once the agreement has been entered into between the applicant and the revenue authorities, such agreement cannot be revised under section 10B of the Act. He submitted that the agreement under section 7D of the Act can only be cancelled for the reasons given under the compounding scheme namely, in case if the applicant concealed the fact and made misrepresentation. Admittedly, compounding scheme was accepted by the assessing authority. He submitted that the agreement under section 7D of the Act can only be cancelled for the reasons given under the compounding scheme namely, in case if the applicant concealed the fact and made misrepresentation. Admittedly, compounding scheme was accepted by the assessing authority. Acceptance of the application was in the nature of agreement and it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) to set aside the agreement in exercise of powers under section 10B of the Act. In my opinion, the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Qayum Khan Thekedar, Aliganj, Banda reported in [2007] 45 STR 322, in which it has been held that the order passed under section 7D of the Act is in the nature of agreement and is not revisable under section 10B of the Act. There is no allegation that in the application any fact had been concealed and the applicant made any misrepresentation. Thus, the aforesaid revisions are being disposed of on the aforesaid ground without going into the question whether in view of the circulars applications were within time or not. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal and as well as orders passed under section 10B of the Act for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 are set aside.