JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist-State and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party-Assessee.

2. These connected five revisions arise out of the judgments and orders dated 05.09.2013 and 28.09.2012 allowing the second appeal filed by the Assessee. The Revision No.92 of 2014, Revision No.152 of 2014 and Revision No.149 of 2014 were admitted on the following question of law:-

"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting exemption on the sale of goods by the Canteen Stores Department to different Canteen Store Department situate outside the State treating the transaction covered under section 8(2A) of Central Sales Tax Act whereas exemption under State Law is conditional and there is no notification."

3. While the Revision No.301 of 2013 and Revision No.303 of 2013 were admitted on the following question of law:-

"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting exemption under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act whereas exemption under Notification No. 7037 dated 31.1.1985 was conditional in nature and not general as such benefit under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act is illegal?"

4. As the issue, in both the sets of revisions, are one and the same, with the consent of the parties, the revisions are being heard together and decided by a common order.

5. Facts, in brief, are that the Assessee is a Canteen Stores Department of the Defence Ministry and it sells goods to various Unit Run Canteens (URC). Further, these canteens, which come under the Defence Ministry, make sale to its various employees in different departments. From the Meerut Depot of CSD, goods are sold to all the canteens situated in the western U.P. After the State of Uttarakhand was carved out in the year 2000, the goods were sold to canteens at Uttarakhand also.

6. The Assessee disclosed its sale to canteens as inter-State sale for the relevant years. The Assessing Authority while making an assessment for the different assessment years held the sale made by the Assessee to its canteens to be an inter State sale, but refused to grant exemption under Section 8 (2A) of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (hereinafter called as 'CST').

7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee preferred a first appeal which was partly allowed. Dissatisfied with the order of the first appellate authority, Second Appeal Nos.328 of 2004, 294 of 2005 and 356 of 2006 for assessment years 2001-02 (Central), 2002-03 (Central), 2003-04 (Central) and Second Appeal No.182 of 2009 for assessment year 2000-01 (under Section 21(2)) and Second Appeal No.258 of 2009 for assessment year 2001-02 (under Section 21(2)) were filed. The Tribunal by the two judgments dated 28.09.2012 and 05.09.2013 allowed the appeals of the Assessee and held the sale made by the CSD to the canteens stores to be exempted from Central Sales Tax in view of Section 8 (2A)/8(2C) (by Amendment dated 11.05.2002 in the CST, Section 8 (2C) was substituted in place of Section 8 (2A)), hence the present revisions.

8. Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in granting exemption under Section 8 of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT relying upon the notif