M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, challenging an order dated November 19, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, whereby a departmental appeal against the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, was dismissed by it. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the dealer-respondent and considered the facts as stated in the orders of the authorities below. The dealer-respondent has a factory located at Modinagar, U. P. , in which it manufactures nylon and polyester yarn of different kinds. For the year under consideration, i. e. , 1973-74 it declared a turnover of Rs. 9,81,707 as inter-State sales liable to Central sales tax. The dispute in the present revision relates to goods worth Rs. 20,68,75,502 which, as claimed by the dealer, were dispatched by it to its various branches situate outside U. P. and this transfer of stock was not sale and hence was not liable to sales tax. This contention was not accepted by the assessing officer, who treated the same as inter-State sales and levied the Central sales tax accordingly. The dealer preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the assessee's contention holding that the goods so sent were of the nature of stock transfer and could not be treated as sales. The Revenue preferred a second appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the first appellate authority. The only point pressed on behalf of the revisionist was that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transfer of goods to various branches was in pursuance of contracts of sale and, therefore, should have been treated as inter-State sales. According to sub-clause (a) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. It is under this clause that the Revenue wants to treat the transactions in question as inter-State sales and the dealer-respondent contends that the despatch of goods by the dealer to its various branches was not in pursuance of any contract of sale and, therefore, this clause did not come into play. Reliance was placed by both the sides on English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475, in which the honourable Supreme Court explained in what circumstances the movement of goods from one State to another amounts to inter-State sales. In that case the appellant-company had its registered office at Calcutta and branches at Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Lucknow. It had its main factory at Madras where it manufactured certain goods. A Bombay buyer contacted the Bombay branch of the appellant-company for purchase of certain goods. The Bombay branch wrote to the Madras factory and ultimately the Madras factory despatched the goods to Bombay. The goods were delivered to the Bombay buyer through clearing agents. The appellant's contention was that it was not an inter-State sale and the sale took place only at Bombay. This contention was not accepted. It was held that the contract of sale was between the appellant and the Bombay buyer. The inter-State movement of goods from Madras to Bombay was the result of the contract of sale and the fact that the contract emanated from correspondence which passed between the Bombay branch and the company could not make any difference. The honourable Supreme Court held that this sale was liable to be taxed under section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Reliance was also placed by either side on Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur [1970] 26 STC 354 (SC ). In this case the appellant-company manufactured trucks and buses in Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar. It transferred the vehicles to stock-yards maintained in several States and from such stock-yards the vehicles were supplied to the dealers. The sale office used to issue allocation letters, on the basis of which the goods were despatched to the dealers from the stock-yards. There were many instances where vehicles had been actually delivered from the stock-yards prior to the issue of the allocation letter. It was also found that on some occasions vehicles had been moved from a stock-yard in one State to a stock-yard in another. Treating the allocation letters together with their confirmation as transaction of sale, and the movement of vehicles from the works to the stock-yards as the direct result of the allocation so made, the Assistant Commissioner imposed tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. It was held that the procedure adopted by the dealer in transferring goods to stock-yard did not bring about any transaction of sale and even assuming that any firm orders had been received by the appellant they could not be regarded as anything but mere offers. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was also placed on Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1973] 32 STC 629. The honourable Supreme Court held that a sale in the course of inter-State trade has three essentials : (i) there must be a sale, (ii) the goods must actually be moved from one State to another, and (iii) the sale and movement of the goods must be part of the same transaction. In that case the dealer had its factory at Faridabad in Haryana. It had its registered office at Delhi. The dealer brought the goods manufactured at Faridabad to Delhi. During the transport of the goods the octroi was paid by the dealer. The goods were received by the dealers' staff at the destination and taken in its godown. In pursuance of the orders, the Delhi staff gave delivery of the goods at Delhi to the customers under challans prepared at Delhi. The bill was raised from Delhi and the price of the goods was received by the assessee at Delhi and deposited in the assessee's account in the Delhi bank. On these facts the honourable Supreme Court held that it could not be said that there was any movement of refrigerators from Faridabad to Delhi under a contract of sale. It was also observed that there is nothing illegal or impermissible to a party so arranging its affairs that the liability to pay tax would not be attracted or that the brunt of taxation would be reduced to the minimum. Reliance was also placed by either side on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel And Press words Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301; 1986 UPTC 105. That was a case of assessee manufacturing standard goods according to its own design and specifications as well as non-standard goods according to designs and specification supplied by customers. It manufactured certain goods under orders of specific buyers according to buyer's specification and sold the same to such buyer after transferring those goods to branches in another State. It was held that the goods moved as a result of a covenant in the contract of sale and hence the transaction amounted to inter-State sale. Thus, from the aforesaid judgments rendered by the honourable Supreme Court, it is clear that in order that an inter-State sale comes into being within the meaning of the Central Sales Tax Act, the goods must actually move from one State to another in pursuance of a contract of sale and the sale and movement of the goods must be part of the same transaction. It is in this light that it is to be seen whether on the facts of the present case the Tribunal was right in holding that the despatch of goods by the dealer-respondent to its branches outside U. P. was not in pursuance of any contract of sale and, therefore, such despatches did not result in any inter-State sale. The dealer has admittedly maintained sales depots outside U. P. and such depots have their own godowns. The Sales Tax Tribunal has concurred with the findings of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were despatched to the branches in bulk and were stored in the dealer's godowns from where they were supplied to various customers. The Tribunal has further held that there was nothing to show that the movement of goods from U. P. was in pursuance of purchases by ex-U. P. customers. It has also been found that in the respective States, the sales made by the depots have been held to be intra-State sales and taxed as such. The learned Standing Counsel read portions of the assessment order to contend that the orders from the goods were obtained first and then the goods were despatched to the depots for delivery to customers. According to him therefore on the principles of English Electric Company's case [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC), the sales would be treated as inter-State sales. Neither the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), nor the Tribunal has accepted this finding. The finding is that there was nothing to show that the movement of goods from U. P. was in pursuance of purchases by ex-U. P. buyers. This is a finding of fact and is not shown to be based on no evidence or on irrelevant considerations. Therefore, in this revision this Court cannot redecide questions of fact. Applying the law as enunciated by the honourable Supreme Court to the facts found by the Tribunal, particularly the principles of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. [1970] 26 STC 354 (SC) and Kelvinator of India Ltd. [1973] 32 STC 629 (SC), I find that the Tribunal's conclusion that no inter-State sales came into being by the dealer's despatch of goods to its branches outside U. P. is correct and no interference is required. The revision petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;