R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) These three revisions have been filed by the assessee against a consolidated order dated 19th July, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, I find that for determination of the liability of purchase tax on the assessee, the Tribunal has relied upon the case of Devi Prasad Sunder Lal Khattri, Kannauj decided by the Tribunal itself on 20th December, 1985 and has also held that the circumstances in the two cases are similar. Mr. Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Devi Prasad Sunder Lal Khattri, Kannauj was the subject-matter of a revision in this Court and for the reasons mentioned in the said judgment dated 20th January, 1987 reported in 1987 UPTC 787, the said order of the Tribunal has been set aside for decision afresh. In these circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that it will be appropriate and proper to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Since the said order is being set aside, the other arguments pressed on behalf of the assessee regarding rejection of account books as well as liability of interest under section 8 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act need not be gone into at this stage. In the result, all the three revisions succeed and are allowed with one set of costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred ). The impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with directions to redecide the appeals afresh in accordance with law. Petitions allowed. .;