JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 700 of 1997 relating to the assessment year 1993-94. In the memo of revision the following question of law has been raised : 1. Whether, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in accepting form IIIG-2 issued by Mukesh Trading Co., Jalaun despite the incriminating evidences on record indicating that the same was not a proper and valid declaration form ? The disputes relates to the assessment year 1993-94. The dealer - opposite party carries on the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains, etc. It claims to have made purchases from one Mukesh Trading Company amounting to Rs. 20,77,000. It filed form IIIG-2. The said form was rejected by the assessing authority on number of grounds including that there are interpolations. The figures were erased. He was also of the view that the registration of M/s. Mukesh Trading Co., the selling dealer, was suspended with effect from July 20, 1993. Rejecting the claim of exemption from tax, assessment order was framed. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully in appeal before the first appellate authority. In further appeal, the Tribunal by the order under revision has allowed it on the ground that M/s. Mukesh Trading Company had taken the liability to pay the purchase tax on its own and therefore the dealer - opposite party could not be saddled with the liability even if the said purchases have not been disclosed by the selling dealer in its return. Shri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the Department, submits that the Tribunal has not reversed the findings recorded by the two authorities below that there were alterations and manipulation in the said form by erasing the purchase figures. He also submits that the Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the fact that M/s. Mukesh Trading Company has not admitted any tax liability in the return. The finding recorded by the assessing authority that there was some collusion in between the dealer - opposite party and M/s. Mukesh Trading Company was required to be gone into by the Tribunal first before setting aside the orders of the authorities below. The finding recorded by the assessing authority that there was some collusion in between the dealer - opposite party and M/s. Mukesh Trading Company was required to be gone into by the Tribunal first before setting aside the orders of the authorities below. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are basically findings of fact. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly reached to the conclusion that the purchases amounting to Rs. 20,77,000 were exempt at the hands of the dealer - opposite party. Considered the respective submission of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The assessing officer in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the assessment order has noticed that figure "O" in the form with regard to the value of the goods in question has been erased. However, the dealer denied any erasing in the said form and came with the case that if there is any erasing in the form it was done by the selling party. The explanation was not accepted by the assessing authority. The assessing authority has further recorded that in respect of above purchases, form IXR and bills have not been produced. In other words, there is no corroborative material to support the plea of tax-paid purchases by the dealer. These facts, in my opinion are vital and have been ignored by the Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the dealer - opposite party. The case of the Department from the very inception is that form IIIG-2 produced by the dealer - opposite party cannot be read in evidence as the existence of the firm M/s. Mukesh Trading Co. was disputed. The assessing authority presumed the knowledge of the suspension of the registration on the ground that the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer are carrying on business in the same market, a valid consideration. The Tribunal without examining these aspects of the case has obviously committed a mistake by setting aside the two orders of the authorities below. Apart from the above, it was found that the dealer obtained the said form in collusion with the selling dealer, he cannot be permitted to take the advantage of his own fraud. The Tribunal without examining these aspects of the case has obviously committed a mistake by setting aside the two orders of the authorities below. Apart from the above, it was found that the dealer obtained the said form in collusion with the selling dealer, he cannot be permitted to take the advantage of his own fraud. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is restored back to the Tribunal for rehearing. The Tribunal will re-examine the matter in the light of the observations made above. Appeal No. 770 of 1997 filed before the Tribunal by the opposite party is restored to its original number. The Tribunal shall re-hear and re-decide the appeal in accordance with law. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.