M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) This revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is directed against an order dated September 20, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Agra, whereby it allowed an appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to enquire whether the dealers' principal had paid tax on the purchase of the goods which they sold through the dealer. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the dealer-petitioner. The dispute relates to the taxability of food-grains and tilhan worth Rs. 1,79,831. 19 and Rs. 50,777. 12 respectively which were received by the dealer-petitioner from as principals for sale as a commission agent. The assessing officer treated the dealer to be the first purchaser of those goods because the dealer-petitioner did not furnish form III-C (2) in respect thereof. The dealer preferred a first appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, who allowed the dealer's appeal on the ground that form III-C (2) was prescribed with effect from March 4, 1974, while the goods in question had been received prior to that date and, therefore, the dealer was not required to obtain form III-C (2) and furnish the same to the assessing officer. The Commissioner then preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which took the view that the dealer should file a copy of the assessment order of his principal to show that the principal had paid tax on the purchases of those goods. The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the matter back to assessing officer to examine the assessee's claim again in that light. The goods in question have been sought to be taxed under section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, which levies tax on the first purchases of certain goods to be notified by the Government. Sub-section (7) (a) of section 3-D states that every purchase within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer, either directly or through another, whether on his own account or on account of anyone else, shall, for the purpose of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the first purchase, unless the dealer proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished such declaration or certificate, obtained from the selling dealer, in such form and manner and within such period, as may be prescribed. No manner of proof was prescribed till March 4, 1974 when rule 12-B was inserted by the U. P. Sales Tax (First Amendments) Rules, 1974 and form III-C (2) was prescribed from March 4, 1974. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, right in holding that as the goods in question have been received by the dealer prior to March 4, 1974, he was not required to obtain form III-C (2 ). The observations of the Tribunal that the dealer should prove that its principals have paid tax on the said purchases is thoroughly untenable. It is not provided even in form III-C (2) which merely provides for an undertaking that the dealer who issues form III-C (2) has accepted liability to pay purchase tax. It is not in every case that the dealer who sends goods for sale to a commission agent must certify that is accepts liability to pay purchase tax. If the is not the first purchaser, he need not say so and can strike off the relevant portion of form III-C (2) as it would be inapplicable in a case in which the principal issuing form III-C (2) is not the first purchaser. Section 3-D could be invoked only if the dealer-petitioner was a purchaser of the goods. Under sub-section (7) (a) of section 3-D only a purchase can be deemed to be a first purchase. If there is no purchase whatsoever no question of invoking section 3-D would arise that is the situation in the present case. The dealer-petitioner had received the goods from his principals for sale in its commission agency. This is a fact which had been admitted by the assessing officer as well as by the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Tribunal. Once it is accepted that the dealer is not the purchaser of the goods and they were entrusted to him by a third party for sale, no question of the transaction being deemed a first purchase would arise and there is no occasion for requiring the dealer to prove a thing which is accepted as correct by the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal's approach on the subject was, therefore, confused and misdirected and the order passed by it is erroneous. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal's order under revision, the Commissioner's second appeal before it is ordered to stand dismissed. The revisionist will get costs of this revision from the respondent. Petition allowed. .;