JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. In this revision two questions have been raised namely 'a' and 'b' which are quoted herein below: (a) Whether in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury AIR 1963 SC 698 , Shiv Shakti Co-op Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659 , the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Hindustan Construction Company v. State of Haryana (2005) 141 STC 119 and the Delhi High Court decision in I.M. Civil Contractor v. C.S.T (2008) 16 VST 329 (Del), the Tribunal below was legally correct in holding that Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was saved by the UP VAT Act without examining whether it was merely an enabling provision or conferred an independent right on the authority? (b) Whether in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in M/S Ramesh Chandra and Subhash Chandra v. C.S.T (1996) UPTC 1263 and the legal maxim of lex non cogit ad impossibillia, the Tribunal below was legally justified in upholding the order under Section 10B without adjudicating on the plea of the revisionist tha the requirement of furnishing Form-IIIB could not have been complied with after the repeal of the U.P. Trade Tax Act w.e.f 01.01.2008 and the revisionist was being forced to perform an impossible act? 3. The first question was sought to be referred to a Larger Bench and has been answered in favour of the revenue by a Full Bench decision of this Court dated 2.12.2015. 4. Insofar the second question is concerned the revising authority had remanded the matter to the assessing authority for consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the impossibility of the filing of the form 3-Bs. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has argued that in his memo of appeal he had sought to add ground nos.6-B, 6-C and 6-D which reads as hereunder: "6-B- Because sales of wheat having been made after 01/01/2008. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has argued that in his memo of appeal he had sought to add ground nos.6-B, 6-C and 6-D which reads as hereunder: "6-B- Because sales of wheat having been made after 01/01/2008. when U.P. VAT came into force and the U.P. Trade Tax Act stood repealed requirement of submission of 3-B became impossible of being complied with and as such the requirement of Form III-B is not readable in the appellant's case. 6-C- Because the appellant having stepped into the shoes of the Flour Miller purchases of wheat made for Flour Miller shall be deemed to have been made by the Flour Miller itsself who is not liable to tax on purchase and hence the appellant shall also remain exempt irrespective of submission of Form III-B. 6-D- Because the appellant being purchasing agent of the Flour Miller is entitled to all the benefits which are allowable to Flour Miller. If Flour Miller purchases food grain directly from unregistered dealer it shall remain exempt on purchases irrespective of furnishing of Form III-B and as such no tax was/is leviable on the purchases of wheat in spite of the fact that Form III-B was not furnished." 6. Even though the Tribunal has noticed these contentions but it has failed to record in findings on the same and has simply come to the conclusion that the exemptions sought could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner. The conclusion is clearly without discussion as to why it could not have been allowed. The revising authority on the contrary had remanded the matter to the assessing authority for consideration of these very facts. 7. In view of the fact that the conclusion is without discussion, it is in the best interest of justice that the matter be reconsidered by the Tribunal itself which is a last fact finding authority. The Tribunal may give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law on ground nos. 6B, 6C and 6D. The Tribunal may hear the matter expeditiously and may not allow the appellant any frivolous adjournment. 8. With the above observation, the revision stands disposed of.