OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) Raising a short but ticklish question this revision is directed by the Revenue against the Sales Tax Tribunal's order dated 3rd February, 1987. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1972-73 in which the assessee carried on business of manufacture of plastic woven bags, as per the assessing officer, and of polythene bags as per the Tribunal. The assessee carrying on manufacturing at Sahibabad (U. P.) showed stock transfer at Rs. 2,10,100. 62 from Sahibabad to Delhi. The assessing officer held that the assessee had wrongly shown stock transfer at Rs. 2,10,100. 62, but if fact, there were inter-State sales to that extent. He, accordingly, rejected the case of stock transfer and brought the inter-State sales at Rs. 2,10,100. 62 to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who agreed with the assessing officer that the assessee made inter-State sales in the garb of stock transfer. He was, however, of the view that each and every transaction is to be seen for determining the question whether there was stock transfer or inter-State sale. He therefore, held that all the transactions could not be said to be inter-State sales. Without specifying the transactions not amounting to inter-state sales, he in lump sum, reduced the inter-State sales by Rs. 50,000. Not satisfied with the relief given by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), the assessee went in second appeal to the Tribunal. The Revenue, however, did not appeal against the relief given by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). So the question before the Tribunal was whether the assessee made inter-State sales to the tune of Rs. 1,60,100. 62 (Rs. 2,10,100. 62 - 50,000 ). The Tribunal considering a few transactions held that one transaction only of 100 bags supplied to M/s. Singhania and Kaparia, Shahadra, vide challan No. 475 dated 8th December, 1987, for Rs. 85 amounted to inter-State sale and rest was the stock transfer. After the Tribunal's order, the dispute is limited to Rs. 1,60,015. 62. The question is whether there was stock transfer to the extent of Rs. 1,60,015. 62 or inter-State sale. Upon careful perusal of the order of the Tribunal it appears that it misdirected itself and reached absolutely an erroneous conclusion. The Tribunal has omitted to consider the vital facts and circumstances. Considering the transaction of M/s. Hypine Carbons Ltd. , Nalagarh, pertaining to 1,500 bags, for which order was received on 3rd October, 1972 and which were sent to Delhi vide challan No. 385 dated 31st October, 1972, the Tribunal observed : " Moreover, it is interesting to note that the sales were made against 'c' forms by Delhi office. As such there was no occasion to avoid any sales tax. " Whether or not supply was made against "c" form or whether there was an intention to avoid the tax - these questions are not at all germane to answer the question whether there was sale in the course of inter-State trade. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the Act, 1956), defining the inter-State trade, so far as material, is reproduced below : " 3. 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 - (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. " When there is a sale in the course of inter-State trade - answer of this question depends on whether a given transaction of sale has occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have confined the scrutiny of the question whether the sale transactions in the case in hand occasioned the movement of goods from factory premises at Sahibabad to Delhi. Whether sale was made against "c" form and whether there was any intention to avoid tax - these questions have no relevancy to the test contained in section 3 of the Act, 1956. The assessing officer clearly found that the goods had been sent to Delhi pursuant to the order dated 3rd October, 1972, from Sahibabad factory to Delhi vide challan dated 31st October, 1972 and the bill was issued on 1st November, 1972. The categorical finding of the assessing officer is that the goods ordered by the buyer were sent by the assessee to Delhi and then they were supplied to the buyer from Delhi. Similar finding has been given by the assessing officer in case of other transactions of M/s. Vinyle and Chemicals (India) Ltd. , M/s. Sagar Chemical Works, Shaharda, M/s. Signet Chemical Works and M/s. U. S. Aid for Food, United States Embassy, New Delhi, which have been referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The thrust of the order of the assessing officer is that in all these transactions goods were sent under challan from the factory premises only after the orders having been received. There is no finding of the Tribunal that the goods sent from the factory premises do not refer to the orders placed by various parties or that there was sufficient stock in Delhi to comply with these orders. The assessing officer has also given the details of the stock register of Delhi, which clearly show that the goods had been supplied to buyers immediately after having been received from the factory premises. The case of the Revenue is that the assessee did not possess sufficient stock in Delhi and that as and when orders were received the goods were being sent from Sahibabad to comply with those orders. In short the contention of the Revenue is that the movement of the goods was occasioned from the factory to Delhi directly pursuant to the orders received in Delhi and so there was a direct nexus and complete linkage between the orders received and the goods supplied from the factory. The facts that goods were being sent from the factory to Delhi after the orders having been received, that there was no sufficient stock in Delhi, that the goods were supplied to buyers immediately after the goods having been received from the factory and that in some cases the goods were manufactured to the specifications of the buyer clearly indicate that the movement of the goods from the factory to Delhi was occasioned by the sale orders. Considering all these facts the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) affirmed the view of the assessing officer that the assessee had made inter-State sales and the movement of the goods from the factory to Delhi was not merely stock transfer, but the Tribunal taking in view the irrelevant considerations reversed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). If there were no linkage between the orders and the goods sent to Delhi from the factory premises, then the sales would have preceded the movement of the goods from the factory premises, but from the transactions alluded to by the Tribunal it is abundantly clear that in all the cases supply of the goods to the buyers was subsequent to the goods having been received from the factory premises. If one carries on the manufacture of standard goods at one place and keeps stocks for sale at another place, then no doubt movement of goods from factory premises to the selling premises would be there but the movement of the goods covered by the sale orders would not precede the sales always and there would be nexus between the two. In the transactions referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the assessing officer has clearly shown that the goods were being sent or even manufactured in some cases only after the orders having been received. This situation is also corroborated by Delhi stock register. To disprove the nexus between the orders received and the goods sent from Sahibabad, the assessee should have established that there was adequate stock most of the time in Delhi and that the movement of the goods was never occasioned from the factory to Delhi office pursuant to any sale order. In Union of India v. K. G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 457, the Supreme Court held that it is not true to say that for the purposes of section 3 (a) of the Act, 1956, it is necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of the goods or that the movements of the goods must be occasioned specifically and in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. Affirming its earlier decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar [1960] 11 STC 655, the Supreme Court further added that section 3 (a) covers sales, in which the movement of the goods from one State to another is the result of a covenant or incident of the contract of sale. In Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1975] 35 STC 445, the Supreme Court observed that : " (i) A sale which occasions movement of goods from one State to another is a sale in the course of inter-State trade, no matter in which State the property in goods passes; (ii) it is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement; and (iii) it is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade with the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale. " Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court to the facts of the instant case, it must be held that the movement of the goods from factory to Delhi office was occasioned by the sale or that the movement was incidental to the contract of sale and, therefore, transactions of sale to the extent of Rs. 1,60,015. 62 held by the Tribunal amounting to stock transfer, are held to be inter-State sales. For the reasons, the revision is allowed. The Tribunal's order dated 3rd February, 1987, is set aside and the order dated January 10, 1979, of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is upheld. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;