JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The subject matters of these two Revision Applications are identical and, accordingly, they are dealt with together. The assessee, in the instant case, is a Government Company. It, amongst others, sells country made liquor. In relation to sale of country made liquor for the Assessment Years 1992-93 and 1993-94, the assessee deposited respectively a sum of ‘21,10,804/- and a sum of ‘10,24,786.60 with the Sales Tax Authority on account of sales tax. It, then, applied for refund of the same on the ground that no sales tax was payable in relation to sale of country made liquor. This prayer has been rejected on the ground that the sale amount of country made liquor included the amount of tax. The Appellate Authority did not interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found, as a fact, that the country made liquor was sold by the assessee at the price fixed by the Excise Department, and that, the price, so fixed, did not take into account sales tax as sales tax on country made liquor was not payable during the relevant assessment years. Having had held so and finding that there is no dispute that country made liquor was not taxable during the relevant time, and that, the sale price fixed by the Excise Authority did not include any sales tax amount, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of refund as was made by the assessee. 2. In the Revision Application, the Sales Tax Department is contending that the Tribunal did not take notice of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which is as follows: “(3) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court or authority, no refund shall be allowed of any tax or fee due under this Act on the turnover of sales or purchases or both, as the case may be, admitted by the dealer in the returns filed by him or at any stage in any proceedings under this Act.” 3. We do not find in the order of the Assessing Officer or in the order of the Appellate Authority findings pertaining to the ingredients for applying the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the Act. We do not find in the order of the Assessing Officer or in the order of the Appellate Authority findings pertaining to the ingredients for applying the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the Act. In other words, there is no finding recorded to the effect that there was an admission by the assessee in the returns filed by him or there was an admission by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings under the Act. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis as if the price of country made liquor fixed by the Excise Authority included tax and, accordingly, tax was collected from the purchaser and, accordingly, there is no question of refunding the tax so collected and deposited. 4. For the reasons as above, we dismiss both the Revision Applications.