Bharati Sapru, J. -- Heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. In this revision two questions have been raised namely 'a' and 'b' which are quoted herein below:

(a) Whether in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury AIR 1963 SC 698 , Shiv Shakti Co-op Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659 , the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Hindustan Construction Company v. State of Haryana (2005) 141 STC 119 and the Delhi High Court decision in I.M. Civil Contractor v. C.S.T (2008) 16 VST 329 (Del), the Tribunal below was legally correct in holding that Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was saved by the UP VAT Act without examining whether it was merely an enabling provision or conferred an independent right on the authority?

(b) Whether in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in M/S Ramesh Chandra and Subhash Chandra v. C.S.T (1996) UPTC 1263 and the legal maxim of lex non cogit ad impossibillia, the Tribunal below was legally justified in upholding the order under Sectio