JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Heard learned standing counsel for the revisionist State and Sri Shubham Agrawal for the assessee. 2. This revision has been filed by the State for the assessment year 2008-09 against the order dated 7.2.2015 passed by the tribunal. The question of law referred to is as under: "(i)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as first appellate authority were legally justified in adding 10% enhancement on the purchase of raw material used in the execution of works contract against the notification dated 27.2.1997? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in following the judgment given in another case of M/s Ashiyana Home Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad in second appeal no.691/2009 dated 6.7.2010 although the fact of that case was different? (iii)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the assessment year 2007-08 being unregistered dealer the dealer was entitled for the benefit of impute tax credit in view of section 13 (1) D of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules read with Rule 30 of U.P. Value Added Tax Rules in view of Rule 30 (2) which have been made applicable from 4.2.2010?" 3. The tribunal has examined the matter at length and has recorded finding in favour of the assessee that the assessee was able to establish from the sole invoice produced by him before the assessing authority of the purchases made by him during the period when he was unregistered dealer and consequently the tribunal being satisfied that the documents, papers and evidence being in order, the assessee was liable to be given benefit of impute tax credit under the provisions of Rule 30 (2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules. The matter is concluded by finding of fact. 4. In view of the finding recorded by the tribunal, no question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal. 5. The revision is dismissed as above. No costs.