R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) Short point pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee in the present case is that as required by the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of rule 41 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, no show cause notice was given by the Sales Tax Officer to the assessee stating the reasons for non-acceptance of the turnover of sales. This point was repeatedly pressed by the assessee before both the appellate authorities below but has not been adverted to by any of the appellate authorities in their orders. Accordingly, I had called for the assessment record of the assessee from the Sales Tax Officer concerned to ascertain the factual position. The learned Standing Counsel has produced before me the said assessment record. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel. From a perusal of the assessment record, it is amply clear that no notice as contemplated by the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of rule 41 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules was given by the Sales Tax Officer. On these facts, therefore, and in view of the aforesaid legal obligation on the part of the Sales Tax Officer, the Sales Tax Officer could not have proceeded to reject the turnover of sales of the assessee. Therefore, all the orders passed by the three authorities below get vitiated in law and are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred ). The impugned orders passed by all the three authorities below are hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the Sales Tax Officer concerned to proceed in accordance with law after complying with the terms of the aforesaid second proviso to sub-clause (7) of rule 41 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules. Petition allowed. .;