The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicant had applied within the prescribed period and that temporary registration sufficed for claiming exemption.

Prakash Krishna, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated December 29, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 33 of 1999 whereby and whereunder it has granted eligibility certificate to the applicant for the remaining period with effect from February 6, 1995, the day when the applicant applied for the grant, for second time.

The applicant is a "new unit" within the meaning of section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. It was established in June, 1994 for manufacture of veneer core flush door, panel door, plywood and block board, etc. The production of the unit was started on June 18, 1994 and the first sale took place on June 22, 1994. It applied for grant of exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to it, on December 6, 1994, i.e., within six months from the date of first production, requisite papers were sent by registered post to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad. The said registered envelope was returned back by the post office with the endorsement that the State Government employees were on strike. After the call-off of the strike, the applicant again applied for grant of eligibility certificate and sent the requisite papers on February 6, 1995. This time the application was returned by the authority concerned on the ground as according to it the papers were incomplete. The objection was that the applicant - dealer is not registered with Small Scale Industries Department. The registration with the Small Scale Industries Department was granted on December 26, 1995.

The divisional level committee granted the eligibility certificate by the order dated February 1, 1997 with effect from December 26, 1995 up to June 21, 2002. The applicant thereafter filed a review application which was ultimately dismissed on December 19, 1998.

The said order was challenged in appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal which was numbered as Appeal No. 33 of 1999. The said appeal has been allowed in part by the Tribunal and it has ordered the eligibility certificate already granted to the dealer be amended and made it effective since February 6, 1995, the date on which the applicant had sent the application for grant of eligibility certificate, for a second time.

In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been framed :

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct that the dispatch of exemption application by registered post to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad on December 6, 1994 admittedly within six months from the date of manufacture as provided under section 4A(5)(a) of the Act, and the return of the same by the Postal Department on account of indefinite strike of the State Government employees, does not fall under the word "applies" as mentioned in section 4A(5)(a) of the Act ?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the return of registered envelope by Postal Department containing the correct address is not a presumed service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 specially when there was no latches on part of the applicant in dispatching the application ?

3. Whether, in any view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly directed the District Level Committee to allow the exemption effective from February 6, 1995 in the eligibility certificate, i.e., date when the exemption application was made by the applicant after the strike of the State Government employees was called off ?

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct not to allow the modification in the eligibility certificate from June 22, 1994, i.e., the date of first sale ?

Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Department.

Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits the following two points :

1. That the applican