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 June 3, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the assessee's second appeal for the assessment year 1977-78. By the impugned order, the revisionist's appeal has been dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The assessee deals in brass wire and alloys, the sale of which is taxable at the point of sale to the consumer. For the year under consideration there was a survey at the business premises of the revisionist and taking into account the various documents found during the survey the assessing officer determined the taxable turnover of the dealer at Rs. 21,00,000 which has been upheld by the first appellate authority as well as by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the assessee was merely purchasing goods from local dealers and selling them as such and the revisionist did not furnish any certificate in form III-A to the selling dealers and, therefore, in the case of the dealers who sold the goods to the present revisionist, the sales would be deemed to be sale to a consumer by virtue of sub-rule (2) of rule 12-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules and consequently sales tax was payable by the sellers of the present revisionist and not by the revisionist. It was also contended that the Tribunal was wrong in making out a new case that the assessee manufactured brass wire. A perusal of the orders of the authorities below would show that the dealer-revisionist got itself registered with the Industries Department and it was his own case that it had shown larger consumption of raw materials in order to procure larger quota of goods. This shows that the assessee admitted that it was not a simple trader purchasing the goods and selling them a such but was engaged in manufacturing activity. It is true that the assessment order does not specifically mention that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of wire but the various details mentioned therein clearly indicate that manufacturing activity was being done. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal, that has discussed the material available on record in quite detail, was not wrong in holding that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity and the sales by it were to be deemed to be sales to the consumer because no certificates in form III-A were obtained from the persons to whom the revisionist sold the goods. Rule 12-A (1) provides that a registered dealer who wishes to purchase any goods, liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-A or section 3-AA at the point of sale to the consumer, without payment of tax shall furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in form III-A, duly filled in and signed by him. Sub-rule (2) of rule 12-A provides that a sale of any of the goods referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be a sale to the consumer unless the selling dealer proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessing authority and, for the purpose, also furnishes to the assessing authority a certificate in form III-A, duly filled in and signed by the purchasing dealer. No such certificates were obtained by the present revisionist from the persons to whom the goods were sold. Therefore, by virtue of section 3-AAA and sub-rule (2) of rule 12-A it has to be presumed that the sales made by the revisionist were to the consumer. The revisionist also presses into service sub-rule (2) and contends that since the revisionist did not furnish certificates in form III-A to its seller, therefore, the sale by those sellers to the revisionist should be treated as a sale to a consumer and taxed in the hands of those sellers. Reliance is placed on Riyasat Husain Hide Co. v. Sales Tax Officer 1970 UPTC 467, in which a similar contention was accepted by this Court. Reliance was also placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bechu Lal Ganga Prasad 1981 UPTC 1213, in which it was held that under section 3-AAA every sale shall be presumed to be sale to the consumer unless the seller produces the relevant declaration. In absence of declaration liability to pay tax is of the selling dealer. Thus by virtue of the provisions of section 3-AAA and rule 12-A the sales by the present revisionist have to be deemed to be a sale to the consumer because necessary certificates in form III-A have not been furnished. The contention that it should be so presumed in the hands of the persons who sold the goods to the revisionist is not acceptable because it is not show from whom the goods were purchased and whether they were sold in the same form or after conversion into other commodity like wire, etc. Patently the assessee has got wires manufactured and must have purchased raw materials in another form from its seller. In the absence of any material to show that any part of the turnover of Rs. 21,00,000 represented the sale of the same commodity which the dealer purchased from its seller, the benefit of the ratio in the case of Riyasat Husain Hide Co. v. Sales Tax Officer 1970 UPTC 467 could not be given to the assessee. No other point argued in this revision. For the reasons discussed above, I find that the Tribunal has committed no error of law in upholding the assessment. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;