R. K. GULATI, J. - (1.) This is a revision against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated September 13, 1988, passed by the Saharanpur Bench. The account books of the assessee were rejected because of the survey dated December 30, 1981. The rejection of the account books was sustained by the Tribunal. One of the questions that is canvassed in this revision is that the rejection of account books could not be legally sustained. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion, the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the matter should be sent back for its reconsideration. The discrepancies noticed on the survey dated December 30, 1981, as stated in the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal were as under : (i) 32. 38 quintals of common paddy (4,041 full bags and 100 loose bags) were found in stock, whereas as per the stock register the stock was 2,931. 18 quintals. (ii) Stock of 2. 54 quintals of common rice was found short. According to the stock register the stock of common rice was 892. 54 quintals. The stock found at the survey by the Sales Tax Officer (Special Investigation Branch) was 320 kattas of 75 kgs. each and 270 bags of one quintal each and loose rice approximately 320 quintals. (iii) A loose parcha was found which contained certain entries that were of December 4, 1981. As per the entries in the loose paper when compared with the entries in the stock register it was noticed that the stock register did not contain entries relating to stock to the extent of 20. 89 quintals that were found recorded in the loose papers. Entries in the loose papers further revealed that the stock of superfine paddy as per the stock register was in excess of 8. 90 quintals than that found recorded in the loose sheets. Before the Sales Tax Tribunal, certain explanation was offered on behalf of the assessee to explain the aforesaid discrepancy. According to the Tribunal the discrepancies found in relation to the entries found in loose sheets could not be explained satisfactorily and thus, it sustained the rejection of account books. With regard to the other discrepancy the Tribunal observed : " So far as the dealer's explanation regarding difference found in stock of paddy and rice is concerned, the same could be accepted because loose paddy and rice has been written on the basis of approximate estimate and 30 quintals of paddy has been written as under process in Hauziya. " From the details of the discrepancies set out above, it may be noticed that apart from the stock of loose rice which was approximately 320 quintals a discrepancy was also found in respect of the stock of rice found in bags. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is not very clear when it stated that the explanation regarding the difference found in respect of paddy and rice could be accepted, because loose paddy and rice had been written on the basis of approximate estimate. It does not make any mention of the stock found in bags. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that as the Tribunal had based its order on the entries found in the loose sheets, the other discrepancies lose their significance. I am not inclined to accept this submission. The assessing officer as well as the appellate authority had rejected the explanation of the assessee in respect of all the discrepancies set out earlier. It was, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal to have recorded its own finding in respect of all the discrepancies set out above in order to determine the question whether the account books of the assessee could validly be rejected. In the absence of necessary findings of the Tribunal with regard to all the discrepancies noticed earlier, it is futile to consider the contention of the assessee that the rejection of the account books could not be sustained with regard to the entries contained in loose parcha. However, it may be noticed that according to the learned counsel the discrepancy of 20. 89 quintals in the stock of common paddy was liable to be ignored having regard to heavy purchases of paddy made during the year and no adverse inference should have been drawn for that discrepancy. Since, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the Sales Tax Tribunal for reconsideration, the assessee shall be at liberty to raise this plea also before the Tribunal and such other pleas that may be available to it in law. It is needless to observe that the Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh in giving effect to this judgment considering all such pleas as may be raised before it by the contending parties. In the result, the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with the direction to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh giving rise to this revision. The revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;