R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these four revisions, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated judgment. Revisions Nos. 493 and 494 of 1988 filed by the department relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, respectively, the revisions Nos. 831 and 832 filed by the assessee also relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, respectively. During the assessment years in question the assessee carried on business in kerosene oil and mobil oil, etc. As a result of rokar bahi and certain other documents seized in various surveys and the evidence produced before the Sales Tax Tribunal, it was held that in the said two assessment years in dispute the proportionate sales of the assessee at Delhi should be fixed at 50 per cent and all the sales of kerosene oil made by the assessee in Uttar Pradesh should be fixed at 50 per cent of the total sales. Aggrieved against the two impugned orders dated December 23, 1987, the assessee has filed the said two revisions, being Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 493 and 494 of 1988, while the department has also filed the said two revisions, being Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 831 and 832 of 1988. The grievance of both the assessee as well as the department in the said respective revisions is that the said ratio fixed by the Tribunal in the impugned orders is erroneous. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that the Sales Tax Tribunal has in the impugned order also made a mention of the fact that so far as the sales of the assessee in the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 are concerned the same had been accepted by the Sales Tax Officer himself and the sales of the assessee for the subsequent assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 have been accepted by the revising authority, with the result that for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70 only the said proportion of sales of goods at Delhi and of the sales in Uttar Pradesh has been fixed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The grievance raised on behalf of the assessee is that although the Tribunal has mentioned the past and subsequent history in its impugned orders but at the time of fixation of the said proportion of sales it has omitted to consider the same. It has further been urged on behalf of the assessee that while fixing the said proportion of sales, the Tribunal in the impugned orders has also stated that no evidence has been adduced by the assessee regarding the years in dispute and that the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee are not liable to be accepted in the absence of necessary materials from the account books of the assessee. These observations and findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal are, therefore, erroneous in law inasmuch as there was evidence and necessary materials produced at the level of even Sales Tax Officer in support of the contentions raised by the assessee and the same have been wholly omitted to be considered by the Sales Tax Tribunal and necessary conclusions in that regard accordingly have not been drawn by it. Consequently, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned orders are vitiated in law. Accordingly, the original records were summoned from the Sales Tax Tribunal. From a perusal of the said original records it is apparent that before the Sales Tax Tribunal the assessee had filed afresh certain lists and therein had mentioned details of various documents which were filed by the assessee before the Sales Tax Officer concerned. Thus the assessee had invited the attention of the Sales Tax Tribunal pointedly to the said materials and evidence and various entries made in the account books in order to support the contentions raised by the assessee before the Sales Tax Tribunal. A bare perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal reveals that no reference at all has been made either to the said documents or to the said lists or materials so produced before the Sales Tax Tribunal, or even to the documents which were produced before the Sales Tax Officer concerned. In this view of the matter I find sufficient force in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the conclusions and the findings arrived at by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned orders as well as the fixation of the proportion of sales so done by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned orders get vitiated in law. Once the said findings get vitiated in law the grievance raised by the Standing Counsel on behalf of the department is also met out inasmuch as the said findings have got to be set aside. In the result, all the four revisions succeed and are allowed with no orders as to costs. The impugned orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal are set aside. Since the dispute relates to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, I do not think it proper that the matter should be remitted back to the assessing authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice and on the consideration that the matter is an old one and since all the relevant materials are already on record before the Sales Tax Tribunal, the Sales Tax Tribunal is directed to rehear the appeals afresh after going through the various documents filed before it as well as before the assessing authority concerned and also the account books of the assessee and decide the controversy involved in these cases by a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible but after giving a proper opportunity to the parties concerned. Petitions allowed. .;