R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) By means of this revision the assessee has challenged the order dated 31st October, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to upholding of the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs for the assessment year 1972-73. The point to be considered in this case is as to whether the said turnover of Rs. 20 lacs was in regard to the alleged branch transfer, relating to a branch situate at Delhi. The Sales Tax Tribunal under the impugned order stated that as a result of the enquiry it was found that there was no godown of the assessee at Delhi. Besides this, the Tribunal has also relied upon the statement of Sri Ayodhya Prasad, who was a partner of the firm M/s. Lalta Prasad Ayodhya Prasad, Delhi. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the facts that there was no godown of the assessee at Delhi have neither been disputed by the assessing officer, nor by the first appellate authority and that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee did not have and godown at Delhi. Under the circumstances the said finding of the Sales Tax Tribunal appears to be incorrect. Factually, in the present case the authorities below, on the basis of material on record, have found that out of the turnover of Rs. 40 lacs the turnover to the extent of 50 per cent is exempt as branch transfer and the remaining 50 per cent, i. e. , the turnover of Rs. 20 lacs, is liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. From a perusal of the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal it is clear that it has only upheld the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs on the sold ground that the sales in question were made the same day at Delhi. For the purposes of levying Central sales tax the same can hardly be a ground available to the department. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that grievance was raised before the Sales Tax Tribunal that no opportunity to cross-examine Sri Ayodhya Prasad was allowed to the assessee. This submission made on behalf of the assessee has also not been gone into by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is very sketchy and is based on incorrect facts and not on considerations which are relevant to the case. Under the circumstances the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 31st October, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with directions to decide the appeal afresh. Petition allowed. .;