JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - These two revisions are directed against a common order dated March 7, 2005 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bareilly in connected Second Appeal Nos. 33 of 2004 and 34 of 2004 for the assessment year 1997-98 (U.P. and Central). The appellant is rice miller and was carrying on the business of manufacturing rice from paddy. In the assessment year in question, the account books of the dealer were rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment orders were framed in respect of U.P. sales as well as Central sales. The said orders were subject-matter of challenge before the first appellate authority who allowed the appeal in part and accepted the disclosed purchases of paddy; raw material for the purposes of manufacturing rice. Still aggrieved, the dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal which have been decided by the order under revision. In the memo of revision, following questions of law have been sought to be raised : "1. Whether the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority ought to have recorded its own finding, but it has failed to do so. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is justified ? 2. Whether the honourable court in various cases has held that even the order of affirmance by the Tribunal required independent finding of the Tribunal and in absence of the same the order passed by the Tribunal is justified ? 3. Whether in absence of any material on record the books of account of the applicant can legally be rejected ? 4. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing sale of rice, i.e., superfine at Rs. 1,54,318 and imposed tax accordingly ? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing sales turnover of rice at Rs. 3,50,880 ?" Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the order of the Tribunal, it is difficult to find out the ground, if any, for not accepting the account books of the dealer as the Tribunal has expressed its general agreement with the findings recorded by the first appellate authority without discussing it. 3,50,880 ?" Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the order of the Tribunal, it is difficult to find out the ground, if any, for not accepting the account books of the dealer as the Tribunal has expressed its general agreement with the findings recorded by the first appellate authority without discussing it. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that necessary explanation was furnished by the dealer to the authorities below with regard to the discrepancies as found in the return version and book version and shortage of certain quantity of rice. The Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, was required to apply its mind to the explanation furnished by the dealer, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned standing counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals without adverting to the relevant material on record. A bare perusal of the assessment order would show that the account books were rejected by the assessing authority principally on three grounds. Firstly, there was difference in between the return version and the book version. Secondly, shortage of 16.31 quintals rice could not be explained. Thirdly, the dealer has not maintained the account books in respect of straw. It may be noted that so far as the third ground is concerned, the authorities below have not levied any tax thereon. In view of the explanation furnished by the dealer that the said item is waste item and was used by the labourers for their domestic consumption to burn the fire, no adverse inference could be drawn, as the said commodity is not a taxable item and has not been taxed actually. As regards the difference in between the return version and the book version, some explanation was given by the dealer and it was for the Tribunal either to accept it or reject it. Without dealing with the said explanation, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the dealer. Non-consideration of the explanation show non-application of mind by the Tribunal. Without dealing with the said explanation, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the dealer. Non-consideration of the explanation show non-application of mind by the Tribunal. Without entering into the merits of the contention as to whether the explanation furnished by the dealer was sufficient or not, it is desirable to restore the matter to the Tribunal to record its findings first. The Tribunal is a last fact finding authority, therefore, it is required to consider all the factual aspects of the case, relevant to decide the appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the purchase of paddy has been accepted by the first appellate authority and the Department has not challenged the said finding is also relevant fact which should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal before dismissing the appeals. The said fact has some bearing with regard to the determination of the turnover, if not otherwise. Viewed as above, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The revisions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside with direction to the Tribunal to rehear and redecide second appeal Nos. 33 of 2004 and 34 of 2004 afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.