JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – This revision petition filed by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated March 12, 1997, raises two questions. The first question is : "(1) Whether boric acid falls under entry 96 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963." Entry 96 is as follows : "Pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and plant protection chemicals other than those specifically included in this Schedule and neem cake." 2. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that boric acid falls under entry 2 of the First Schedule which runs as under : "All acids". It is not denied that boric acid is acid. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner before us that boric acid is neither a pesticide nor insecticide nor fungicide by itself, but it is mixed with pesticide, insecticide or fungicide. 3. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that boric acid will fall under entry 2 of the First Schedule and not under entry 96 of the First Schedule, inasmuch as boric acid is neither pesticide nor insecticide nor fungicide by itself. 4. The second question for consideration is whether the books of accounts were rightly rejected by the assessing officer. The book version was rejected on the ground that sale bills for a sum, aggregating to Rs. 31,229.45, were not accounted for and that boric acid is an acid and not a plant protection chemical. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that it was categorically stated before the Tribunal that the sale bills aggregating to Rs. 31,229.45, were duly accounted for and that necessary materials were produced before the Tribunal. But no finding was recorded by the Tribunal on such contention. Our attention is drawn to annexure F - Grounds of Appeal. Adverting to the said annexure, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was well demonstrated before the Tribunal that the aforesaid bills were duly posted in the books of accounts and yet no finding was recorded by the Tribunal. This requires reconsideration by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal omitted to consider the ground specifically raised in this behalf. In the result, the revision on the first point fails and is dismissed. This requires reconsideration by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal omitted to consider the ground specifically raised in this behalf. In the result, the revision on the first point fails and is dismissed. In so far as the second point is concerned, the case is remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal, who will consider the submission of the petitioner and record a clear finding afresh whether or not the aforesaid sale bills are duly posted in the books of account of the petitioner. The Tribunal's order in this behalf is set aside.