A. P. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. In the present revision the question raised is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the applicant has done business in its own account on the basis of survey dated 23rd April, 1977. ( 2 ) THE present revision relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The applicants case is that it has not done any business in the year in question and it declared its turnover to be nil. The Sales Tax officer, however, rejected the contention of the applicant and fixed taxable turnover at Rs. 1,15,000 and imposed with the tax of Rs. 4,200. ( 3 ) IN appeal by the dealer, the appellate authority dismissed its appeal. In the second appeal, the sales Tax Tribunal has also dismissed the same. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the applicant, it has not done any business during the relevant period of this assessment year. It was urged that only ground for not accepting the case was the survey dated 23rd April, 1977, which was for the assessment year 1977-78. ( 5 ) I have gone through the orders passed by all the three authorities. It is clear that the only ground for rejecting the case of the applicant was the survey dated 23rd April, 1977, which was for the earlier period than the present year in question. If something adverse is found in the preceding year that cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the question whether the dealer was doing business for this year or not. ( 6 ) IT was urged on behalf of the department that actually even in the subsequent year it has been assessed to tax and, therefore, taking this circumstance there was nothing wrong for the authorities in rejecting the case of the dealer. The consideration that the dealer has done any business in a particular year or not, merely what was found in the preceding year, cannot constitute a ground for the year in question. In the absence of any material, the authorities below committed error in rejecting the case of the dealer. There is nothing on the record to show that the dealer has done any business in the year in question. In the absence of any material, the authorities below committed error in rejecting the case of the dealer. There is nothing on the record to show that the dealer has done any business in the year in question. If it was a case of estimation of the turnover, then a previous year and a subsequent year may be relevant consideration. In the present case the question is whether the dealer has done any business in this year or not. In the absence of any material in the year in question the assumption only on the basis of a survey in the preceding year, cannot be a good ground. ( 7 ) IN view of this, the revision is allowed and it is held that the authorities below committed error in assessing the dealer only on the basis of the material found in the preceding year which has no relevance for the year in question. ( 8 ) THE revision is accordingly allowed and the case is sent back for passing the order before the sales Tax Tribunal under Section 11 (8) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. .