Bharati Sapru, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel. 1. This revision has been filed by the assessee under section 11 (1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 5.4.2002 passed by the Tribunal by which it has affirmed the cancellation of the registration granted to the assessee under section 8-A (1)(b). 2. The questions of law referred are as under: "(i) Whether in view of section 8-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act the applicant being liable for payment of tax on business carried on by it, the registration granted to the applicant cannot be cancelled? (ii) Whether even assuming without admitting that there was any violation of section 28-A in respect of the coal imported by the applicant, for which the security was deposited for release of the coal, the said question can be decided in the penalty proceedings but on that ground the registration cannot be cancelled? (iii) Whether in view of the survey dated 29.12.1999 and 31.12.1999 and in view of the stock register seen and signed by Asstt. Commissioner (S.I.B.) and Industries Department, the manufacturing of hard coke was being done and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in holding that the applicant is not manufacturing hard coke? (iv) Whether even assuming without admitting that the applicant instead of manufacturing the hard coke is selling the coal imported from outside the State of U.P., the applicant being liable for payment of tax in respect of the business carried on by it, the registration certificate cannot be legally cancelled? (v) Whether in any view of the matter, the cancellation of the registration certificate by the assessing authority and confirmed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is illegal and liable to be quashed?" 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist was granted registration on 23.2.1996 under the Act aforesaid to manufacture hard coke. The assessee was given a notice under section 8-A (1)(b) of the Act on the ground that while the assessee was given a registration to manufacture hard coke, it was caught selling coke directly. Five trucks loaded with coke were apprehended and when the drivers were interrogated, they said that the coke was being sent to Rajasthan. Later they denied this. This is the only ground for cancelling the registration certificate. 4. Five trucks loaded with coke were apprehended and when the drivers were interrogated, they said that the coke was being sent to Rajasthan. Later they denied this. This is the only ground for cancelling the registration certificate. 4. The Tribunal has recorded that other grounds as mentioned under section 8A (1)(b) are not attracted. The Tribunal has also not recorded finding that the manufacturing activities of the assessee has come to an end. In fact, it has come on record that one furnace was still in operation. No finding to the contrary has been recorded by the Tribunal. 5. Learned standing counsel has relied on the provisions of section 8.BB of the Act by saying that if there is change in the business, the assessee should have informed the department. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that even if the provisions of section 8.BB of the Act are to be applied and enforced, mere failure to comply with the section could not result in cancellation of the registration certificate. Since the business of the assessee has not come to an end and on the other hand, he is indulging in some additional business, his additional business shall be subject to tax. 7. In view of the business of the assessee continues and if he is indulging in any additional business, he shall be subjected to tax. The registration of the assessee shall be restored. The impugned orders dated 21.2.2000 and 9.2.2000 are quashed. 8. The revision is allowed as above. The questions of law referred are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.