JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - These two revisions relate to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 (U.P.) and are directed against a common order dated March 7, 2000 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 268 of 1999 and 270 of 1999. The dealer - opposite party carries on the business of gur. During the assessment years in question, the dealer disclosed that it made purchases on behalf of ex-U.P. principals in the course of inter-State purchases and as such, it is not liable to pay any purchase tax on such purchases of goods. The said plea was not found favour with the assessing authority. It was held by the assessing authority that the account books produced by the dealer - opposite party are not reliable. They are forged and fabricated one. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate authority. Being further aggrieved, the dealer - opposite party preferred aforestated second appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the order under revision has allowed the appeals and held that the purchases made by the dealer - opposite party were on behalf of ex-U.P. principals in the course of inter-State purchases. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been raised by the learned standing counsel : "(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the transactions of purchases in question were the purchases for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principals despite the fact that evidence on record does not indicate that the purchases in question have been made in pursuance of the orders from ex-U.P. principals ? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned member of Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the nature of disputed transactions as inter-State purchases contrary to the facts on record ?" Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Department is that the Tribunal without examining the account books, merely after discussing the relevant law, has jumped to the conclusion that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. He submits that so far as the legal position is concerned, if the purchases have been made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals in the course of inter-State purchases, there is no liability on such transactions of the dealer. He submits that so far as the legal position is concerned, if the purchases have been made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals in the course of inter-State purchases, there is no liability on such transactions of the dealer. He submits that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal without examining the findings recorded by the two authorities below and account books, etc., has allowed the appeal filed by the dealer - opposite party simply on the ground of legal proposition without addressing itself to the relevant facts. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, submits that from a bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has examined the matter itself and reached to the conclusion that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As noted above, the claim of the dealer was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the dealer has failed to prove that it made purchases on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. The assessing authority in the assessment order has examined the nature of the transactions in great detail. He also examined the account books which were produced for verification before it. After making analysis of the facts of the case, the assessing authority reached to the conclusion in para 6 of the assessment order that the account books produced by the dealer - opposite party are fabricated one. The account books have been prepared by the dealer as per its own will and desire. A categorical finding has been recorded with regard to "fabrication" of the account books in the said paragraph. The said finding was confirmed by the first appellate authority. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has not even touched or reversed the finding with regard to "fabrication" of the account books recorded by the two authorities below. The Tribunal has proceeded to decide the appeal by making general observations that from the account books before it, the facts of the case do show that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. The Tribunal has proceeded to decide the appeal by making general observations that from the account books before it, the facts of the case do show that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has not addressed itself to the real issue as to whether the account books maintained by the dealer are true or fabricated one. Moreover, from perusal of the order of the Tribunal it is evident that the Tribunal has not referred any specific account books which have been examined by it. By making passing remarks and general observations that the facts and circumstances of the present case do show that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals allowed the appeals. The Tribunal has gone to the extent in making the observation that even the assessing authority has admitted before it that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. The said observation is without any basis and not borne out from the record. Had it been so, there would have been no occasion for the assessing officer to levy the purchase tax on the dealer - opposite party. It appears that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal without applying its mind to the real controversy involved. It has not taken care to record a finding as a fact whether the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. To determine the said issue, it was necessary for the Tribunal to have looked into the order book, despatch register, movement of goods, etc. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is hereby, set aside. It is held that for extending the benefit of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196; [1992] UPTC 971, it should record the required factual finding first. In the result, both the revisions succeed and are allowed in part, as indicated above. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is restored back to the Tribunal to rehear and redecide the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made above in accordance with law. No order as to costs.