JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Cause shown is sufficient; in view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation application the delay in filing the revision is condoned. 2. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the assessee. 3. This matter has come on a remand from the Hon'ble Apex court. This revision was filed by the department for the assessment year 1999-2000 against the order of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2007. The question of law, which was referred to is hereunder: - "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in setting aside the proceedings u/s 21(2) on the basis of issuance of invalid notice?" 4. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the notice, which was given by the department was itself invalid and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the Act were held to be bad. 5. The facts of the case are that the opposite party was a registered dealer under Section 8A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of gitti. For the assessment year 1999-2000, a regular assessment was made in 2002. 6. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 31.03.2003, under Section 21 (2) of the Act against the assessee. The notice has been brought on record. It is addressed to Shashi Gupta, the proprietor of the firm. 7. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner imposing a sum of Rs.12 lacs was against Shashi Gupta, although the show cause notice was ostensibly issued against the firm, M/s Vikalp Construction Company. The notice, which is on record does not reflect any good reason for issuing it under the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Act. 8. An order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 25.03.2003, which was challenged in First Appeal No.403 of 2003 by the assessee. The appellate authority vide its order dated 07.10.2003 recorded a finding that the notice issued under the provisions of Section 21 (2) was invalid since it had not been issued in terms of the said provisions. The matter was remanded back to the tax assessment officer for reassessment. 9. The appellate authority vide its order dated 07.10.2003 recorded a finding that the notice issued under the provisions of Section 21 (2) was invalid since it had not been issued in terms of the said provisions. The matter was remanded back to the tax assessment officer for reassessment. 9. Against the order dated 07.10.2003 passed by the first appellate authority the assessee filed a second appeal being Second Appeal No.547 of 2003 before the Tribunal and the second appeal of the assessee was also allowed by an order dated 25.07.2007, which is the impugned order in the present revision. No cross appeal was filed by the department against the order passed by the first appellate authority. Such being the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the department. 10. The facts, which emerge are that the finding recorded by the first appellate authority that the notice was invalid became final against the assessee because the department never sought to challenge the same. The jurisdiction of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is limited, which extends to the consideration of questions of law. 11. Since the department allowed the finding that the notice was invalid to become final, it is now not open to the department to argue in the remand proceedings that it can go into the question once again. 12. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to argue that the notice was a good one, had been given on time and it was open to the department to take recourse to the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the Act but from the facts as they emerge from the record, it is abundantly clear that the department allowed the finding of the first appellate authority to become final. 13. Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the assessee has sought to argue that in remand proceedings it is not open to the department to raise these plea's. He has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Anand Export Corporation, Agra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1996 U.P.T.C. 81. Paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted hereunder: - "It is settled law that the principles of res judicata apply to different stage of the same proceedings also. Paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted hereunder: - "It is settled law that the principles of res judicata apply to different stage of the same proceedings also. A matter decided at one stage cannot be agitated at a subsequent stage. Thus a trial court or a higher court having at earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. See Satyadhan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 and Jagannath Prasad v. District Judge, Allahabad, AIR 1987 All 317 ." 14. Having heard learned Counsels on both side and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the assessee has rightly relied on a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Anan Export Corporation (supra), in which it has been held that quietus must be given to a matter. Parties should not be allowed to reagitate the matters again and again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings, particularly in a case like the present one where they allowed the finding of the first appellate authority to become final with regard to the invalidity of the notice. I am in the respectful agreement with the opinion given by this Court in the case M/s Anan Export Corporation (supra). 15. Having said so, I am of the opinion that this revision has no merit, it is dismissed. No costs.