Anil Kumar - Heard Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shubham Agarwal, advocate and Vaibhav Pandey, advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present revision has been decided at the admission stage.

Facts, in brief, as stated by Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary, senior advocate are that initially an order has been passed by the assessing authority under section 25(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist filed an appeal before the appellate authority on the ground that the impugned order passed by the assessing authority is not as per Schedule II of the Value Added Tax Act and an application for interim relief was also moved. By order dated October 21, 2010, the appellate court had granted an interim order to the effect that 25 per cent. of the disputed tax shall remain stayed.

The said order was challenged by way of second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal and by means of impugned order dated October 27, 2010, the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal with the direction that 45 pe