D. S. SINHA, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Ashok Mehta, the learned special counsel, representing the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow, the applicant and Shri M. K. Agarwal, the learned counsel, representing the assessee-opposite party. This revision under section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called "the Act", is directed against the judgment and order of the U. P. Sales Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur (D. B.), dated January 11, 1989. By means of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has declared the assessee-opposite party as non-taxable in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The short question of law raised by Shri Mehta is whether the Tribunal could, in law, declare the assessee-opposite party as non-taxable notwithstanding his admission of the tax liability on the turnover to the tune of Rs. 25,584. 80 and the undisputed absence of requisite declaration or certificate in form III-C (2), contemplated under sub-rules (1) and (12) of rule 12-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, hereinafter called "the Rules", evidencing the factum of payment of tax by the dealer from whom the assessee made purchase to the tune of Rs. 1,06,263. 20. From the perusal of the assessment order dated February 18, 1987, it is evident, and Shri Agarwal, the learned counsel representing the assessee-opposite party, has fairly conceded, that the assessee had, in fact, admitted his tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 25,584. 80; that he had deposited the requisite tax thereon; and, further, that in respect of purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,06,263. 20, no form III-C (2), entitling the assessee to claim exemption under rule 12-B of the Rules was produced either before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority. It has not been disputed that without furnishing form III-C (2), the assessee could not claim exemption from the tax liability in respect of the purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,06,263. 20. In view of non-production of form III-C (2) in respect of the purchase of Rs. 1,06,263. 20 and on the face of the admission of the assessee with regard to his tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 25,584. 80, the assessee could not, in law, be declared non-taxable under the Act. The court has carefully scrutinised the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and finds that the Tribunal had not considered the impact of the absence of form III-C (2) in respect of the purchase amounting to Rs. 1,06,263. 20 and of his admission of his tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 25,584. 80. This is fatal and the impugned judgment, therefore, must perish. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated January 11, 1989 is set aside. Let a copy of this decision be transmitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the quantum of tax payable by the assessee-opposite party under the Act in conformity with the above answer to the question of law raised on behalf of the Revenue. Petition allowed. .;