JUDGMENT R. K. GULATI, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated January 7, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Meerut. Brief facts are these : Out of gross turnover of Rs. 3,88,635 the assessee admitted the taxable turnover of Rs. 7,245. According to the assessee it was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of ex-U.P. chaff-cutter machines, U.P. hardwares, ex-U.P. iron and scraps. During the assessment it was claimed that the chaff-cutter machines were sold along with stands that were manufactured by the assessee itself from the purchase of ex-U.P. angle iron. Admittedly, chaff-cutters were totally exempt item during the year. The disclosed turnover was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer and he estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 90,000 which included a turnover of Rs. 8,000 of sale of imported hardware, Rs. 22,000 as sales of iron scrap and Rs. 60.000 as sales of angle iron. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who gave a partial inasmuch as he reduced the sale of iron scraps of Rs. 15,000 and deleted the entire addition on account of sale of angle iron assessed by the Sales Tax Officer. The Revenue preferred a second appeal against the appellate order. Initially, the Tribunal while allowing the appeal by its ex parte order dated August 17, 1985 remanded the matter to the assessing authority with certain directions. Against the assessment order, the assessee came up in revision before this Court. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal for a fresh decision by it observing that since the State was not represented at the Tribunal stage and it being the aggrieved party, the matter needs to be reconsidered after hearing the State Representative. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the Tribunal party allowed the appeal of the Revenue by the impugned order. The assessee has now come up in this revision. The Sales Tax Tribunal has restored the assessment order in so far as it brought to tax the turnover of sales of iron scraps and angle irons. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the assessee did not dispute the correctness of the Tribunal's order concerning the turnover of iron scrap assessed at Rs. 22,000. It is therefore, not necessary to deal with it. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the assessee did not dispute the correctness of the Tribunal's order concerning the turnover of iron scrap assessed at Rs. 22,000. It is therefore, not necessary to deal with it. The challenge to the Tribunal's order was confined to the assessability of Rs. 60,000 being the estimated turnover of sales of angle iron that was upheld by the Tribunal. The case of the assessee before the Tribunal was that it had utilised the entire purchases of angle iron in the manufacture of chaff-cutter stands while, according to the Revenue, the assessee had not maintained its accounts as required by section 12 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (for short "the Act") particularly the manufacturing accounts and thus, the disclosed turnover was liable to be rejected. Further having regard to the purchase of chaff-cutter machines which were to the extent of Rs. 1,93,000 the angle iron worth Rs. 1,34,187 shown to have been utilised in manufacture of stand was most improbable. It may be observed at this stage that the first appellate authority had deleted the disputed turnover on the finding that the sales Tax Officer himself had accepted in the assessment order that the entire purchases of angle iron was utilised in manufacture of stand. The Tribunal found as a fact that this observation of the appellate authority was based on misreading of the assessment order and the assessee was not entitled to the relief on that ground. The Tribunal went on to hold that as the assessee had not maintained any proper manufacturing account, which could have established the utilisation of the imported angle iron, the conclusion drawn by the assessing authority that the angle iron as such to the extent of Rs. 60,000 was sold by the assessee, cannot be said to be unreasonable and on this finding it restored the addition of Rs. 60,000. Section 12 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act provides for accounts to be maintained by dealers. It reads as under : "12. Accounts to be maintained by dealers. 60,000 was sold by the assessee, cannot be said to be unreasonable and on this finding it restored the addition of Rs. 60,000. Section 12 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act provides for accounts to be maintained by dealers. It reads as under : "12. Accounts to be maintained by dealers. - (1) Every dealer including a dealer exempted from tax or payment of fee under any provision of the Act, shall keep and maintain a true and correct account showing the value of the goods sold and bought by him, and in case the accounts maintained in the ordinary course do not show the same in an intelligible form, he shall maintain true and correct account in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf : Provided that this section shall not apply to such dealers as are not liable to taxation under this Act. (2) A manufacturer liable to pay tax under this Act shall, in addition to the accounts referred to in sub-section (1), maintain stock books in respect of raw materials as well as the products obtained at every stage of production : Provided that in the case of any class of manufacturers, the aggregate of whose turnover, as referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of section 3, in an assessment year does not exceed five lakh rupees, the Commissioner of Sales Tax may relax the requirements of this sub-section subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may deem fit to specify. (3) The accounts and the stock books required to be maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be preserved by the dealer or, as the case may be, by the manufacturer for such period as may be prescribed." It may be noticed that in case of manufacturer sub-section (2) of section 12 enjoins upon the dealer to maintain stock books in respect of the raw material as well as the products obtained at every stage of production in addition to the accounts required to be maintained as referred to in sub-section (1) of that section. The Sales Tax Tribunal rejected the account books of the assessee primarily for non-compliance of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act, which would be evident from the remarks contained in the order of the Tribunal which are to the following effect : "In any case in the absence of proper manufacturing account which could have established the utilisation of this imported item, the inference of the assessing authority that the sale was of Rs. 60,000 cannot be said to be unreasonable and deserves to be restored". Although there are some other observations in the Tribunal's order touching upon the veracity of the account books maintained by the assessee but the Tribunal did not record any definite finding on those aspects of the matter, in view of its observation extracted above. Learned counsel for the assessee invited my attention to a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in Ansar Traders v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1988] 69 STC 70 and contended that where a dealer is engaged in manufacturing a commodity which is totally exempt from tax, the account books cannot in law be rejected, for the mere non-compliance of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act. There is substance in this contention. In the case cited above, the question that fell for consideration was whether the account books for manufacture and sale of exempted items can be rejected under section 12(2) of the Act. The decision of the court was that it could not be done. In that case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wooden carving and for that purpose it purchased timber. The sale of wooden carving goods were exempt from tax the assessee had maintained no manufacturing account as in the instant case and its account books were rejected and certain additions were made on best judgment. The assessment was upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Construing the provisions of section 12(1) of the Act, the court held that a dealer engaged in manufacture and sale of exempted goods is not required to maintain accounts under sub-section (2) of section 12 and his account books cannot be rejected for that account. The assessment was upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Construing the provisions of section 12(1) of the Act, the court held that a dealer engaged in manufacture and sale of exempted goods is not required to maintain accounts under sub-section (2) of section 12 and his account books cannot be rejected for that account. In view of the decision of this Court with which I am bound sitting singly, the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be sustained on the mere finding that the assessee had not maintained the manufacturing account. However, the matter does not end there. In that very decision the court held that different considerations may arise if the accounts were not maintained as required by sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act and it was observed that every dealer including a dealer exempted from tax under any provision of the Act, shall keep and maintain a true and correct account of the goods sold and bought. If the assessing officer feels that the assessee is a dealer in timber, then he may call upon the assessee to furnish the accounts of sale and purchase under sub-section (1) of section 12 and if he fails to maintain the same, then the book version can be rejected. In the instant case, the Sales Tax Officer had made the addition on other grounds apart from non-maintenance of the manufacturing accounts. As already observed, though there are some observations in the order of the Tribunal, touching the other ground, but it did not record any concluded opinion on those considerations. Learned Standing Counsel emphasized that in the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee had shown the purchases of angle iron to the extent of Rs. 15,000 whereas the gross sales of the assessee were Rs. 3,99,500 while in the year in dispute when the gross sales were of Rs. 3,88,635 the assessee had made purchases of iron angle to the tune of Rs. 1,34,000 which clearly indicated that the assessee had sold some part of the angle iron and did not utilise the entire iron purchased for manufacture of stands as claimed by it. 3,99,500 while in the year in dispute when the gross sales were of Rs. 3,88,635 the assessee had made purchases of iron angle to the tune of Rs. 1,34,000 which clearly indicated that the assessee had sold some part of the angle iron and did not utilise the entire iron purchased for manufacture of stands as claimed by it. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that in the past the assessee was never assessed on any turnover of angle iron and there was no material available to the tax authorities for the finding that a part of the iron angle was sold as such. I do not feel it necessary to enter into this controversy for essentially it is a question of fact which could appropriately be determined by the fact-finding authority constituted under the Act. As the Tribunal has not addressed itself on these aspects of the matter, there is no option except to set aside the order of the Tribunal to the limited extent with a direction to it to decide the appeal giving rise to this revision, afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. I order accordingly. For what has been stated above, the revision succeeds in part and is allowed, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.