JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Cause shown is sufficient; delay is condoned. 2. This revision has been filed by the State for the assessment year 2000-01 against the order dated 5.2.2011 passed by the tribunal. 3. The question of law referred to is as under: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in affirming the order passed by the first appellate authority treating the transaction relating to supply of glow shine board manufactured by the dealer as sale and not as a works contract?." 4. The Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority and has come to the conclusion that the works undertaken by the assessee was in the nature of works contract and not sale for reasons the order has come from outside the State to complete the contract. The nature of the contract would not change mere issuance of Form-D. 5. In view of the findings recorded by the two courts below concurrently, no question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal. No other question was argued. 6. The revision is dismissed as above. No costs. 7. Shri Lokesh Mittal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the assessee.