RASTOGI, J. - (1.) The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, has filed this revision under section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter "the Act" ). It relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm carried on business in foodgrains, gur, oil-seeds, bardana, etc. The assessing authority accepted the accounts and the disclosed turnover for this year but did not allow exemption to the assessee on certain purchases claimed to have been made for and on behalf of some ex-U. P. principals and they were brought to tax under section 3-D (1) of the Act. These purchases were of Rs. 17,465. 00 of gur and of Rs. 6,22,890. 60 of oil-seeds and of Rs. 72,134. 65 of foodgrains. According to the assessee, these were inter-State purchases and the assessee was not liable to any tax in respect thereof under section 3-D (1) of the Act. The assessing authority observed that the assessee admitted before it that it had made these purchases from cartmen and had taken delivery of the same and paid the price thereof and the seller had no control over the goods thereafter, that is, when and where the same would be despatched. In the opinion of the assessing authority, on these facts, these transactions could not be treated as inter-State purchases but they represented purchases made by the assessee from local cartmen liable to tax under the Act. The same view was taken by the appellate authority. When the matter came up in revision before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Gorakhpur, following the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809, he took the view that these were inter-State purchases. He observed : " It is borne out from the record and conduct of the parties that the ex-U. P. buyers bought the goods through commission agency of the assessee from agriculturists and farmers and the assessee had arranged delivery of goods to ex-U. P. destinations. The movement of goods was pursuant to contract aforesaid and the purchases are not in dispute as the account books have been accepted. The decision in Hanuman Trading Company, therefore, is available to the facts of the case. " He also took the view that for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 he had applied that decision to the case of the assessee in respect of similar transactions. He repelled the contention of the State representative that the case might be remanded for consideration in the light of the decision in Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 since in his opinion that would not serve any useful purpose. It was submitted before me by Sri V. D. Singh, the learned standing counsel, that the revising authority applied the ratio laid down by this Court in Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 without appreciating and analysing the facts of the case. He has referred to the conduct of the parties and to the evidence on record, but he has not elaborated as to what that conduct was or what is that evidence which justifies the benefit of the aforesaid decision to the assessee in respect of these transactions. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the assessee that the revising authority has recorded a finding of fact which is binding on this Court and that on similar facts for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the same view had been taken and the department's revisions, being Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 278 and 279 of 1980, have been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on 7th January, 1981. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the matter should have been remitted for reconsideration. It is correct that in the Commissioner's revisions for 1971-72 and 1972-73 the view taken by the revising authority has been upheld and that is for the reason : " The standing counsel has failed to show that the finding recorded by the revising authority that the assessee was a purchasing commission agent is perverse or suffers from any error of law. " Therefore, when in that case the standing counsel could not show that the view taken by the revising authority suffered from any manifest error of law, this Court declined to interfere. Before me the position is different and such was also the position in several other similar cases which have come up before me. They are Sales Tax Revision No. 496 of 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gorakhpur Dal and Oil Mills) decided on 13th January, 1981, and Sales Tax Revision No. 499 of 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Laxmi Trading Company) decided on 21st January, 1981. I am of the opinion that each case is an authority on its own facts. Before the benefit of the decision given in Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 can be invoked it has to be found as a fact as to whether the impugned transaction comes within the ambit of section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It will be useful to make a reference in this behalf to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1980] 45 STC 212 (SC); 1980 UPTC 326 at 331 (SC ). The ratio of Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 is that if a sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, then section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act converts such a transaction into a sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. In order to attract section 3 (a) the movement of goods should be occasioned either by the sale or the purchase. It is not necessary that there should be an express contract in that behalf. Such contract can be inferred by implication from the conduct of parties as well. The basic fact is that the contract of sale or purchase must occasion the movement of goods from one State to another. This question can be decided on a consideration of the facts of the case and not on any hypothetical basis. What has been characterised on behalf of the assessee as a finding of facts recorded by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is nothing else but mere physical reproduction of certain observations made by this Court in Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809. Unfortunately this has been the pattern which I have noticed in several such cases which have come up before me and which have been decided by the same Additional Judge (Revisions ). I do not think that this can amount to a finding of fact. A finding of fact is given on the basis of the material on record or circumstances obtaining in a case. The revising authority has of course said that it was clear from the conduct of the parties and from the evidence on record that these transactions were in the nature of inter-State purchases but unfortunately he has not said as to what is that conduct or what is that evidence which persuaded him to take this view. Certain reasons had been given by the assessing and the appellate authorities for repelling this contention. The revising authority being the last fact finding authority can certainly reappraise the evidence and the circumstances of the case and come to a finding which may be different from the finding recorded by the revenue authorities. Unfortunately the attempt of the revising authority in the present case was not to record a finding in this behalf on a reappraisal of the evidence on record. As noted above this attempt was bring this case within the ambit of Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 by physically lifting some of the observations made therein, in his judgment given in the present case. I may state that the facts found in the case of Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 were that the dealer, inter alia, made purchases for ex-U. P. principals from agriculturists and cartmen and despatched those goods on the same day if railway wagons were avilable. In case they were not available the longest interval in despatch of goods was not more than three days. Further it was found that the movement of the goods purchased by the assessee was pursuant to a contract of purchase entered into between the assessee and the ex-U. P. buyers. Apart from this on the purchase of the goods for ex-U. P. principals in their own account the assessee could not divert the goods. In short, therefore, since the facts have not been inquired into the case certainly needs reconsideration. An attempt has been made on behalf of the assessee to show that there transactions were in the nature of inter-State purchases and for that purpose certain charts containing extracts from the account books have been filed. There is nothing to show that these charts were examined by the revising authority or that the department was given any opportunity to verify them. I do not think that in second revision this Court can be expected to verify these charts and to give a finding that these transactions were in fact in the nature of inter-State purchases. The next question is in regard to purchases of Rs. 3,29,167. 00 and Rs. 4,23,787. 65 of rice from Nepali dealers for ex-U. P. principals. These were builty-cut purchases. The assessee claims to have made the purchases from those dealers for and on behalf of ex-U. P. principals and that they were purchases during the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The assessee had furnished a written explanation before the assessing authority in which it was stated that these goods had been despatched by the Nepali dealers to ex-U. P. principals, that after receiving payments in respect of the same from the assessee they endorsed the railway receipts in its favour and in turn despatched the receipts to those ex-U. P. principals. There was no proof given by the assessee to show that these purchases had been made in pursuance of any contract. The assessing authority did not accept the claim of the assessee for exemption in this behalf and treated the turnover in respect of the same as liable to tax under section 3-D (1 ). The same view was taken by the appellate authority. The Additional Judge (Revisions), however, has taken a different view. On the view that the account books of the assessee are not in dispute and it is borne out from the record that in respect of these transactions the assessee merely acted as purchasing agent, the revising authority held that the case was distinguishable from the case of Maheshwari Trading Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1979 ATJ 144. The revising authority further took into consideration the fact that for 1971-72 and 1972-73 he had accepted the contention of the assessee, and therefore, for the year under consideration as well he took the same view. I find that the position in regard to 1971-72 and 1972-73 was different. In those years the appellate authority had accepted the assessee's claim and the view taken by this Court was that though there was no specific agreement proved in the case, from the conduct of the parties it was borne out that the assessee acted only as a purchasing agent for ex-U. P. principals and the movement of goods was as a result of agreement to purchase and since it had not been shown that that finding was perverse, there was no merit in the grievance of the revenue to the contrary. In my opinion, in so far as this question is concerned it as well needs reconsideration for the reasons given in detail above. The question for consideration was as to whether these purchases of rice were made from Nepali traders in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. According to the assessee's case itself the despatches had been made by the Nepali traders and they had obtained railway receipts in their own names. After receiving payments from the assessee in respect of those despatches, they endorsed the railway receipts in favour of the assessee and the latter endorsed them in favour of the ex-U. P. buyers. It would have to be seen as to whether the transactions were covered by the provisions contained in section 3 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. An almost similar question had come up before me in Sales Tax Revision No. 1123 of 1978 (Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Ram Charan Sajan Kumar) decided on 11th February, 1980, and there also for proper investigation into facts the matter was referred back. In view of the above discussion, this revision succeeds and is allowed and the order of the revising authority, in so far as the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 3-D (1) in respect of disputed purchases of notified commodities and Nepali rice are concerned, is set aside and it is referred back to the Sales Tax Tribunal for decision afresh on merits. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. .;