PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department.
(2.) IN these two revisions, assessment years 1985 -86 and 1986 -87 are involved. Raising a short controversy, the present revisions have been filed. The applicant claimed that he is carrying on the business in trading agency in food grain and raab. The applicant's claim that certain purchases made on behalf of ex -U.P. principal have not been accepted by any of the authorities. Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that purchases were not made on behalf of ex -U.P. principal, on its true and correct understanding of the transaction entered into by the applicant, is nothing but purchases made in the course of inter -State purchases.
(3.) THE facts, which are not in dispute, may be noted in this regard. According to the own showing of the applicant, the buyers from outside the State of U.P. used to come to the applicant and the applicant made the purchases as per the specifications and requirements of the buyers who were present on the spot. The applicant indisputably charged purchase tax on such purchases. According to the applicant, goods were despatched to such purchasers. On these facts, the question arises whether the purchases were made in the course of inter -State purchases, coupled with the fact that the applicant -dealer issued IIIC(1) form on such purchases.;