R. K. GULATI, J. - (1.) This is a revision under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") and pertains to the assessment year 1983-84. The revision arises out of reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the Act. The applicant, M/s. Om Prakash Virendra Kumar, is a partnership concern engaged in the business of kachchi arhat and sale and purchases of gur. In the initial assessment for the year in question the account books of the assessee were accepted, in which besides other items, sale of gur was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 3,17,801. 24. Although copy of the assessment order is not available on the record of this revision but from other materials it seems that the assessment proceeded on the assumption that the assessee had paid Rs. 3,630. 91 as mandi fee during the year in question. Subsequent to the initial assessment an information was received by the assessing officer that the mandi fee paid during the year was an amount of Rs. 7,797. 63 which was paid in three parts and not the amount of Rs. 3,630. 91. Certain other information was also received in respect of two other items. As initiation of the proceedings under section 21 of the Act is not under challenge, it is not necessary to say anything further in this regard. It may be noticed that the amount of Rs. 7,797. 63 being mandi fee was paid as under : Date Mandi fee 30-4-1983. . . Rs. 4,166. 77 1-7-1983. . . Rs. 3,354. 05 21-10-1983. . . Rs. 276. 87 ------------- Rs. 7,797. 63 ------------- In pursuance to the notice for reassessment, it seems that the assessee did not appear and the reassessment order proceeded ex parte. The Sales Tax Officer held that the turnover of sale of gur returned by the assessee was disproportionately low to the mandi fee paid by the assessee. Proceeding on this premises, an additional turnover of Rs. 4,62,200 of sale of gur was brought to tax over and above the turnover that was assessed by the initial assessment order and besides this two other items that had escaped assessment were also taxed and are the subject-matter of this revision. Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant, in so far as, two other items are concerned, I find no merit for any interference by this Court. However, the turnover of sale of gur amounting to Rs. 4,62,200 brought to tax in the reassessment proceedings, in my opinion, requires a fresh consideration of the Sales Tax Tribunal for the reasons set out hereinafter. There is no dispute between the parties as regards the payment of Rs. 3,354. 05 and Rs. 276. 87. The entire dispute revolves round the payment made on April 30, 1983 of Rs. 4,166. 77. The assessee does not even dispute the payment of Rs 4,166. 77 or the total payment of Rs. 7,797. 63. The case of the assessee is that although the payment of Rs. 4,166. 77 was made on April 30, 1983, i. e. , during the year in question, but it pertained to transactions of immediately preceding year, as would be evident from the certificate of the mandi samiti, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 4 to this revision. This certificate was also placed before the Sales Tax Tribunal who has made a mention of it in its order. The Sales Tax Tribunal discarded the certificate of mandi samiti as unreliable by saying that the yearly details of mandi fee is not related to the financial year and as the assessee has not disputed the payment on April 30, 1983 of Rs. 4,166. 77, the assessment had to be made taking into consideration the entire payment of mandi fee of Rs. 7,797. 63. It is pertinent to mention that the observations of the Sales Tax Tribunal that the yearly details of mandi fee are not related to the financial year, it seems, were made in general and not with reference to the certificate under consideration. From a perusal of the certificate it is evident that the payment of Rs. 4,166. 77 in April, 1983, was shown as balance of the year 1982-83. This payment was certified in addition to the payments for the year 1983-84 details of which were separately set out. It cannot be denied that under the Act the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. The functions that it discharges in hearing an appeal, are purely judicial. The nature of the jurisdiction predicates that the Tribunal will approach and decide the case in a judicial spirit and in doing so will give due consideration to all the materials before it. In the context of its functions, the Tribunal is not permitted to ignore any relevant evidence and if it does so, without acceptable reasons as to the truncated fashion in which the appreciation of evidence has been done, then the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Now if the Tribunal though that the certificate of the mandi samiti furnished by the assessee left certain doubts and without further clarification the certificate could not be accepted on its face value, the appropriate course would have been to seek a clarification rather than to discard the evidence on surmises and conjectures. As observed earlier, there is nothing in the certificate of the mandi samiti (annexure 4 to the revision) to suggest that the payment of mandi fee indicated therein was not on the basis of financial year. On the contrary, the certificate refers to the payment of Rs. 4,166. 77 on April 30, 1983, as the balance amount of the year 1982-83. If that be the correct factual position, it is difficult to say that the result of the appeal may not have varied. In the assessment order, as well as in the appellate order there is no discussion about the certificate in question and no assistance is available from the said orders. Since the Tribunal had not considered the matter in its right perspective, and has chosen to reject the relevant evidence cursorily and in a summary manner, it appears equitable and in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent it affirms the assessment of turnover of Rs. 4,62,200 in respect of sale of gur and to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with the direction that while giving effect to this judgment, the Sales Tax Tribunal shall restore the appeal giving rise to this revision to its original number and shall decide the matter afresh to the extent indicated above and in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made above. The revision succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. Stay order, if any, shall stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .;