R. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 22nd January, 1986, passed by the Chairman, sales Tax Tribunal, U. P. , for the assessment year 1978-79 in respect of the proceedings under the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for that year. ( 2 ) DURING the assessment year in question the assessee dealt in brassware and E. P. N. S. ware. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that the only reason for discarding the book version of the accounts of the dealer was a parcha which was recovered in the survey dated 10th September, 1979. There is no dispute between the parties that this parcha relating to the period 12th January, 1979, to 30th January, 1979, related to a karigar known as Dulha Jaan. It is the admitted case of the parties that the modus operandi of the dealer was that it used to issue raw materials to its karigars and received finished goods from them. Accordingly for issuing those raw materials to the karigars, an entry has been made in the kargar register. After receipt of the finished products, an entry of the receipt of the goods has again got to be made in the kargar register and the wages so received by the karigars have got to be made in the accounts of the assessee. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal the facts as they emerge are that in so far as the material in which parcha No. 5 was recovered on 10th September, 1979, is concerned, the relevant entry with regard to the issue of raw materials and the receipt of finished products does find place in the kargar register of the assessee. The department was, however, labouring under an erroneous impression that such issue of raw materials is to find place in the account books of the assessee. That is not the correct method of recording the transaction. The method of maintaining the account books by the assessee in the manner in which it had done in the present case has not at all been disputed by the department. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, the controversy that was before the Tribunal was as to whether the assessee is liable to pay tax on the aforesaid raw materials so issued to the tune of Rs. 46,000. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, the controversy that was before the Tribunal was as to whether the assessee is liable to pay tax on the aforesaid raw materials so issued to the tune of Rs. 46,000. The Tribunal has, however, held that the said transaction amounted to a sale under the Act. ( 4 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the assessee has not preferred any revision against the aforesaid order of the tribunal in this Court. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) THE contention raised on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax is that there is a finding recorded in the appellate order of the Tribunal that under the aforesaid parcha recovered on 10th september, 1979, there was suppression of sale to the extent of Rs. 46,000 and, therefore, the tribunal was not justified in its impugned order in not estimating sale at a higher figure than Rs. 46,000. Hence the said order deserves to be set aside and the case remanded back to the Tribunal for redetermination of the estimated suppressed turnover for the whole year. ( 7 ) SRI Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the dealer, has, however, submitted that a close scrutiny of the order of the Tribunal will disclose that under the facts of this case there was no question of suppression. His contention is that the relevant entries undisputably were found in the kargar register of the dealer and having regard to the method of maintaining the account, it was not possible to make any entry in the other account books of the assessee unless wages are paid by the dealer. With regard to that part as to whether the wages have or have not been paid, there is no dispute between the parties. Learned counsel further proceeds to submit that in the present case the only controversy which was and has been decided by the Tribunal is as to whether the cost of this raw material amounting to Rs. 46,000 is liable to tax or not. It is not a case of discovery of any suppression of sales. Hence there arises no question of setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, there is considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the dealer. 46,000 is liable to tax or not. It is not a case of discovery of any suppression of sales. Hence there arises no question of setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, there is considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the dealer. Admittedly the issue of raw material to Dulha Jaan as found in the parcha recovered on 10th september, 1979, does find place in the kargar register of the dealer and if Dulha Jaan was a karigar of the assessee there arose no question of making any entry in the account books of the dealer till the time wages were paid to him. The basis that the disputed parcha belonged to the dealer, as found by the Tribunal, is that the relevant entry with regard to the said parcha does find place in the kargar register of the assessee. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal will disclose that the Tribunal has taxed a sum of Rs. 46,000 only on the basis that the value of the aforesaid raw material will amount to sale under the Act. The Tribunal has nowhere found that it was a case of suppression of turnover during the aforesaid period; Hence the contention raised on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that suppression was found to the extent of Rs. 46,000 under the aforesaid parcha is not correct. In this view of the matter, I find, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order of the Tribunal. ( 9 ) IN the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. .