JUDGMENT RAJESH KUMAR :- These are two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 17, 2003 for the assessment year 1993-94 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The applicant is the manufacturer of carpet. It appears that during the year under consideration, the applicant had also purchased carpets for Rs. 14,87,960 from unregistered dealer. It was claimed that the carpet for Rs. 25,12,411.25 have been exported against form H, in respect of which form H and bill of lading were furnished. The assessing authority had rejected the books of account on the ground that the manufacturing account had not been maintained. The assessing authority had estimated the taxable turnover within the State of U.P. at Rs. 5 lacs and inter-State sales at Rs. 14,87,960. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the applicant filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both the appeals, against which the applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed both the appeals. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in saying that the books of account have not been produced before the assessing authority and before the Tribunal. He submitted that the books of account have been produced before the assessing authority. The Tribunal has never asked the applicant to produce the books of account, otherwise the applicant would have produced the same before the Tribunal. He submitted that there is no basis for the estimate of turnover within the State of U.P. and levy the tax on the turnover of Rs. 14,87,960 under the Central Sales Tax Act. I have perused the impugned order. It appears that the assessing authority has issued the show-cause notice stating therein that the manufacturing account has not been produced and the applicant has been asked to produce the same. In the show-cause notice, it has not been stated that other books of account have not been produced. Therefore, the only allegation was that the manufacturing account has not been produced. In reply to the show-cause notice, the applicant has stated that the manufacturing has been got done through the Karigars and the name of Karigars have been furnished. In the show-cause notice, it has not been stated that other books of account have not been produced. Therefore, the only allegation was that the manufacturing account has not been produced. In reply to the show-cause notice, the applicant has stated that the manufacturing has been got done through the Karigars and the name of Karigars have been furnished. In the order, the Tribunal has not given basis for the estimate of the turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. The apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar reported in [1997] 104 STC 130 (SC); [1997] UPTC 213, has held that the maintenance of manufacturing account is mandatory and in the absence of non-maintenance of manufacturing account, the books of account is liable to be rejected and the best judgment assessment is to be made. In this view of the matter, the books of account in the absence of maintenance of manufacturing account is liable to be rejected. From the perusal of the order, it appears that no reason has been given for the estimate of turnover. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. It will be open to the Tribunal to ask the applicant to produce the other books of account maintained by the applicant. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated June 17, 2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide both the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made above.