JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to pass the following order. 2. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General contends that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the policy only for a period of five years, in terms of Section 42 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax, Act 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Well, we are not inclined to agree with such submission for the following two reasons. (a) Policy is not placed before us; and (b) From the bare reading of order dated 25.10.2000, passed by the Additional Excise And Taxation Commissioner-cumAppellate Authority (South Zone) , Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Appeal No. 77/2000-01, titled as M/s Ganesh Rice and General Mills, Nalagarh District Solan, H.P. versus The Assessing Authority, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, we find the authority itself to have extended such benefits for a period of ten years, w.e.f., 1.12.1984 till 30.11.1994. 3. With the passing of order dated 26.9.2000, in Appeal No. 184/99-2000, titled as M/s Ganesh Rice and General Mills, Nalagarh versus Addl. Excise & Taxation Commissioner (SZ) , Shimla-cumAppellate Authority, by the Himachal Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal Dharamshala, the Tribunal vide order dated 10.3.2009, has sought the instant reference to be adjudicated on the following question of law. "Whether despite the fact those in terms of Notification No. EXN-C (4) 25/76 dated 28.7.1998, notified exemption periodicity was only 5 years, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in extending the statutory periodicity of 5 years and grant exemption for 10 years, contrary to section 42 of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 and Notification dated 28.7.1998, ibid, issued there under?" 4. We find that not only the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee vide said order dated 26.9.2000, holding the assessee entitled to the benefits of the Notification for a period of ten years but also the Revenue to have accepted such position while passing the order dated 25.10.2000, in connection with the assessment year in which the reference is sought by the Tribunal. 5. In this view of the matter, reasoning adopted by the Tribunal while passing order dated 26.9.2000, are evidently consistent and in the line of existing interpretation of practice and law followed by the revenue. 6. 5. In this view of the matter, reasoning adopted by the Tribunal while passing order dated 26.9.2000, are evidently consistent and in the line of existing interpretation of practice and law followed by the revenue. 6. As such, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find no need to answer the Reference sought for by the Tribunal.