R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) Since in all these four revisions a common point arises, they are disposed of by a common judgment. During the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessee carried on brick kiln business. After rejection of account books a best judgment assessment was made in the said two years by the assessing authority. On appeals both the appellate authorities have confirmed the rejection of account books but the first appellate authority had reduced the estimate of turnover as fixed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the department filed second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which have been disposed of by a common order dated 28th November, 1987, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in each of the said two years. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed revisions. Revisions filed by the assessee have been numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 409 of 1988 and Sales Tax Revision No. 410 of 1988, while the revisions, filed by the department have been numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 661 of 1988 and Sales Tax Revision No. 662 of 1988. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first submission, made by the learned counsel for the assessee, is that the Tribunal is in error in confirming the rejection of account books for the said two years of the assessee. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent that the account books for the said two years have been rejected solely on the basis that pathai, bharai, nikasi registers which were produced at the time of assessment, were not made available to the surveying officers at the time of various surveys. Learned counsel for the assessee further submits that the same cannot be a ground for rejection of account books in view of three decisions of this Court in the cases of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sumer Cotton Mills 1981 UPTC 1217, Imran Ahmed v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1982 UPTC 238 and Balli Ram v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1984) ATJ. 290. The view taken by this Court in the said three cases is that non-production of account books at the time of survey by itself was not a circumstance leading to the rejection of account books and that non-production of account books at the time of survey raises presumption against the assessee but this presumption is rebutted when the account books are produced at the time of assessment. Thus it has been held in all the aforesaid three cases that the account books cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were not produced at the time of survey. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the department in this regard has, however, relied upon two decisions of this Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Mukesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1985 UPTC 1192 and Govind Ram Ratan Kumar v. Commissioner, Sales Tax [1988] 68 STC 352; 1987 UPTC 1785. From a perusal of these two cases, I, however, find that the argument which was raised in the cases cited on behalf of the assessee as above was not raised before the court in the two cases cited by the learned Standing Counsel, nor in the said two cases cited by the learned Standing Counsel the earlier three cases cited by the assessee were cited before the court. In these circumstances, therefore, having given my anxious consideration to the aforementioned cases, I find that the view taken by this Court in the three cases cited by the learned counsel for the assessee appears to be correct. To my mind, the presumption raised against the assessee by non-production of account books at the time of various surveys stands rebutted when the account books were produced at the time of assessment. Admittedly, in the present case in neither of the said two years the authorities below found any defect in the account books of the assessee. In this circumstance also, in my opinion, the authorities below were not right in rejecting/affirming the rejection of account books of the two years in dispute. The impugned orders passed by the authorities below, therefore, suffer from an error of law and are liable to be set aside. As regards the estimate of turnover fixed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the two years in dispute having heard learned Standing Counsel, I find that the said fixation of turnover is based on relevant materials and there is no error of law in this regard in the impugned orders passed by the two appellate authorities below. In the result, the two revisions filed by the assessee as above succeed and are allowed and the account books of the assessee for the two years in dispute are hereby accepted, while the other two revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax as above fail and are dismissed. In these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions filed by assessee allowed. .;