JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J. - This revision, filed under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is directed against the order dated June 9, 1989, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench II, Meerut. The assessment year in question is 1976-77. The applicant deals in centrifugal pump, electric motors and diesel engine and their parts and accessories. The applicant submitted return. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the account books submitted by the applicant and assessed the applicant on the basis of best judgment assessment by order dated November 29, 1980. The applicant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Meerut. The appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed. Aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) the applicant filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench, Meerut. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal by order dated June 9, 1989. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the account books of the applicant were rejected on the ground that the applicant did not properly keep the manufacturing account as provided under section 12(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Even if the account books are rejected, the assessing authorities were bound to consider the taxable turnover on the basis of the material evidence produced before them and only thereafter the assessing authorities should arrive at a conclusion and make best judgment assessment. He has placed reliance on Agarwal Plastic Industries, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1989 UPTC 1281 and Agarwal Plastic Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1991 UPTC 1029. In these cases it has been held that in case no manufacturing account has been maintained as provided under section 12(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the account books could be rejected but still the authorities have to consider the material on the record for determining the taxable turnover. In the present case after rejection of the account books the Tribunal has taken into account the audit report submitted in the case and survey reports and other records. The assessee had itself disclosed the taxable turnover at Rs. 4,14,952 and the taxable turnover as finally determined is only Rs. 5,40,000. After considering the material evidence on record I do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The assessee had itself disclosed the taxable turnover at Rs. 4,14,952 and the taxable turnover as finally determined is only Rs. 5,40,000. After considering the material evidence on record I do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the assessee was entitled to the exemption on the purchase of electric motors. They were locally purchased. The Tribunal did not grant the exemption for the reason that the applicant had supplied electric motors to the Government departments in pursuance of a contract for sale of centrifugal pumping sets. The contract was to supply pumping sets. Instead of supplying the pumping sets, it supplied electric motors separately, which with other parts could be assembled later on and given shape of centrifugal pump. As the contract was to supply centrifugal pumps, but it supplied electric motors and other parts separately, which later on were assembled to give shape of centrifugal pump, the supply to the Government was not in accordance with terms of contract and for such supply the applicant was not entitled to get exemption. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is erroneous. There was no question of validity of contract or performance of the contract. The simple question was whether the applicant was entitled to exemption on the sale of locally purchased electric motors. There is no denial of the fact that in case the electric motors are locally purchased and thereafter sold within the State of U.P. then the applicant is entitled to exemption. The applicant admittedly supplied electric motors. There is no justification for not granting the exemption to the applicant on the supply of such electric motors. In the result, the revision is allowed so far as the U.P. sales tax is concerned and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the applicant is entitled to the exemption of tax on the sale of the electric motors. The amount of tax shall be determined accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.