JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against an order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal rejecting rectification application under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 filed by the present applicant. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are almost undisputed. The assessment year involved is 1982-83. The applicant disclosed subsequent inter-State sale to the extent of Rs. 1,65,69,982.61. The assessing authority accepted them and extended the benefit of forms EI and EII filed by the dealer. Subsequently, it transpired that the dealer - applicant has not filed the relevant form EI relating to the transaction of Rs. 6,40,000. A show-cause notice was issued and thereafter the assessment order dated January 31, 1987 was rectified by the order dated November 26, 1988. The appeal against the rectification order was dismissed by the first appellate authority. The order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated August 17, 1991. Thereafter, an application under section 22 of the Act was filed before the Tribunal on the ground that there are certain errors in the order of the Tribunal which are liable to be corrected under section 22 of the Act. The rectification was sought on the ground that forms EI and EII for Rs. 6,40,000 were filed but the same were not considered by the Tribunal. The said rectification application having been dismissed, the present revision has been filed. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been sought to be raised : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in upholding the order of the authorities below withdrawing the exemption on the amount of Rs. 6,40,000 by passing an order under section 22 ? (ii) Whether the opportunity ought to have been allowed to the applicant to file form EI ?" Heard Sri Krishna Agrawal, advocate, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned standing counsel for the Department. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the revision has not yet been admitted as it was filed with delay. The cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the revision is condoned. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the revision has not yet been admitted as it was filed with delay. The cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the revision is condoned. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that filing of forms EI and EII was not essential (a point which was not raised earlier before any of the authorities), hence the Tribunal erred in not rectifying the mistake. The learned standing counsel supports the impugned order. No argument was advanced that an opportunity to file form EI ought to have been allowed. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it appears that the dealer is taking shifting and contradictory stands. Earlier it was submitted by it that form EI was filed before the assessing authority, but he could not establish the same. In question No. 2, the grievance is that opportunity ought to have been allowed to file form EI. Having lost up to the Tribunal stage, rectification application, giving rise to the present revision, was filed. The relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal is reproduced below : "... It is apparent from the material on record that in order to get the exemption the assessee has to file forms EI and form C both. In the instant case, the assessing authority has inadvertently granted exemption on the turnover of Rs. 6,40,000 and later on found that form EI had not been filed. ..." No error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out and, therefore, the application for rectification was rejected rightly. From the order sheet, it appears that when the matter was heard on July 14, 2006, the learned counsel for the assessee prayed for some time to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record form EI which was filed before the assessing authority in proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The matter was listed on various dates before different Benches, but the applicant failed to file the supplementary affidavit, as required by the order dated July 14, 2006. In view of the above, I find no error in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the rectification application. The matter was listed on various dates before different Benches, but the applicant failed to file the supplementary affidavit, as required by the order dated July 14, 2006. In view of the above, I find no error in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the rectification application. It may also be placed on record that the present revision is directed against the order dated January 22, 1997 rejecting the rectification application. The earlier order dated August 17, 1991 dismissing the appeal has attained finality as it was not challenged further. The scope of the present revision is, therefore, confined as to whether the Tribunal was justified in passing the order under revision on the rectification application. There was no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order of the Tribunal dated August 17, 1991 and as such, the question of any rectification does not arise and the rectification application was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. There is no force in the revision. The revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000.