R. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) DURING the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee carried on business in gur, foodgrains, etc. The account books of the assessee were accepted. It purchased gur, etc. , on behalf of the ex-U. P. principals against verbal orders and packed the same in his own gunny bags which were purchased by the assessee in his own account. Thereafter the packed bags were sent to ex-U. P. principals. Admittedly the price of the commodity supplied and of gunny bags were charged separately but commission was charged for both the prices. The assessing authority treated the transaction in bardana to be separate from the transaction of purchasing agency of gur, etc. and held that the supply of bardana was a sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and accordingly he levied Central sales tax on the assessee. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) upheld the said assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer. On further appeal, the tribunal has, by the impugned order, again upheld the imposition of Central sales tax. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at the following conclusions : 1. Separate price for bardana was charged with commission on the price. A separate khata was maintained for the purchase and sale of bardana. 2. Bardana was purchased by the dealer in his own account and not in the account of ex-U. P. principals. 3. This bardana was not returned. It was never contemplated that it would be returned back. 4. All purchase orders were said to have been verbal and no written purchase order is available for examination of the terms of contract. Though it is hardly believable in view of the nature of transaction involved, but even accepting this contention as such, except supply vouchers, there is no document to examine any contract made between the parties. 5. A contract was apparently of the supply of other goods in purchasing commission agency and not for supply of bardana as such. The assessee supplied those goods in his own bardana and charged the price of bardana with commission, separately. Clearly, the charging of price of bardana separately was contemplated. ( 2 ) THE Tribunal on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that although there was no written agreement in regard to the supply of bardana but there was an implied contract. Clearly, the charging of price of bardana separately was contemplated. ( 2 ) THE Tribunal on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that although there was no written agreement in regard to the supply of bardana but there was an implied contract. ( 3 ) THE first submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the Sales Tax tribunal is in error in deciding the case on the basis of a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Vanaspati Trading Company 1979 UPTC 1011. On the other hand the submission is that the present case is squarely covered by another decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mool Chand Gulzari Mal, Ghaziabad 1983 UPTC 91. It has further been stated that a special leave petition filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the aforesaid judgment in the case of Mool Chand Gulzari Mal 1983 UPTC 91 (All.) has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2nd November, 1987. ( 4 ) THE question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to which of the decisions of this Court stated above is applicable to the facts found in the present case. ( 5 ) IN the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vanaspati Trading Company 1979 UPTC 1011 the assessee dealt in foodgrains and oil-seeds and also acted as purchasing agent for ex-U. P. buyers. It purchased foodgrains and oil-seeds for ex-U. P. principals and thereafter packed and stored the commodities in its own gunny bags before sending them to their principals. The ex-U. P. principals were charged separately for the gunny bags. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee in that case was that the sale of gunny bags was complete in Uttar Pradesh and as such no liability under the Central Sales Tax Act is exigible. Admittedly the turnover of gunny bags can be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act only if there is an inter-State sale. The taxability of the transaction depends on the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to that section, two requirements have to be fulfilled before a transaction becomes liable to tax under Section 3 of the Act. The taxability of the transaction depends on the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to that section, two requirements have to be fulfilled before a transaction becomes liable to tax under Section 3 of the Act. Firstly, that there should be a contract of sale and, secondly, that the sale must occasion the movement of the goods from one State to another or be incidental to the movement. In the said case, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, it was found that there was an implied contract of sale as in the present case. To constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of property in goods by one person to another and the transfer must be for cash or for any other valuable consideration. It is thus implied that two entities must be involved in the transaction. It was held in that case that the assessee had two capacities, one as owner of the gunny bags and the other as purchasing agent of ex-U. P. buyers. After purchasing the foodgrains for ex-U. P. buyers it utilised its gunny bags for packing and storing the commodities purchased and charged the price of gunny bags from the ex-U. P. buyers. In this situation, the court concluded that the assessee was acting in two capacities, one as owner of the gunny bags and the other as the purchasing agent of ex-U. P. principals and that on these facts there was a transfer of property in the gunny bags from the person who was the owner of the gunny bags to the purchasing agent. In that case also the assessee had charged the price of gunny bags from ex-U. P. principals in pursuance of an agreement with his ex-U. P. principals to supply the goods in question. Thus all the ingredients of the sale were present. In that case also the assessee had charged the price of gunny bags from ex-U. P. principals in pursuance of an agreement with his ex-U. P. principals to supply the goods in question. Thus all the ingredients of the sale were present. ( 6 ) IN so far as the question of movement of gunny bags from one State to another was concerned, it was held that the foodgrains purchased by the assessee were packed in them and then the bags containing the foodgrains were despatched to places outside U. P. It was, therefore, held that the movement of gunny bags outside U. P. was directly linked up to their sale or at least incidental to it, inasmuch as right from the start the parties contemplated that they should be sent outside U. P. after foodgrains were packed in them. Therefore, there was only one contract for the sale of the foodgrains and the contract for the supply of gunny bags was implied in the same. ( 7 ) COMING now to the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mool Chand Gulzari Mal 1983 uptc 91, in this case the assessee who was a commission agent purchased gur for ex-U. P. principals and packed the same in chataee and sutli. The assessee was reimbursed the price of chataee and sutli by the ex-U. P. principals. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vanaspati trading Company 1979 UPTC 1011 was cited before that Bench. In paragraph 8 of its judgment, it was held by this Court in the said case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Moot Chand Gulzari mal 1983 UPTC 91 that in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vanaspati Trading company 1979 UPTC 1011 it was found that there was an implied contract between the assessee and the ex-U. P. principals who had two capacities, one as an agent for the ex-U. P. principals for the export of the goods outside Uttar Pradesh and the other as the owner of the gunny bags which, under the implied contract, he had sold in the course of the inter-State sales to the ex-U. P. principals who purchased the said foodgrains. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mool chand Gulzari Mal 1983 UPTC 91 it was held that although the assessee was reimbursed the price of chataee and sutli yet there was no implied contract to sell the same and hence no sale of gunny bags occurred at all. Therefore, there was no liability to pay Central sales tax. It has been specifically held in paragraph 22 in the said case that there is no finding by any of the authorities that there was an agreement to sell bardana between the assessee and the ex-U. P. principals and that the agreement to sell related only to the purchase of goods in question in which the assessee acted as commission agent of the ex-U. P. principals. Further, in paragraph 24 of the said report the legal position has been summarised as under : the whole question, however, remains as to whether the contract between the assessee and the ex-U. P. principals was for the sale of bardana or not. If the agreement between the assessee and the ex-U. P. principals was that gur would be packed in bardana and on delivery gur and bardana would become the property of the ex-U. P. principals, the Central sales tax would be leviable and if there was no such contract, no Central sales tax would be leviable. ( 8 ) FROM a perusal of the impugned order passed in the present case, I find that there is a finding of fact recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal that there was an implied agreement between the assessee and the ex-U. P. principals that the foodgrains would be packed in bardana and on delivery the bardana will become the property of the ex-U. P. principals. ( 9 ) THE upshot of the above discussion is that, in my opinion, the Sales Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that on the findings arrived at by it, the present case is governed by the ratio in the case of the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vanaspati Trading Company 1979 UPTC 1011 and not by the ratio in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mool Chand Gulzari Mal 1983 UPTC 91. ( 10 ) IN view of the said findings recorded by the Tribunal which has been arrived at on an appreciation of evidence and on consideration of the materials on record and which has also not been challenged by the learned counsel for the assessee, in my opinion, the Sales Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is liable to pay Central sales tax on the sales of gunny bags. ( 11 ) THE other submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the assessee had charged commission on the amount of bardana also. Hence it is incidental to the purchase of commission agency and no Central sales tax is payable on the sale of bardana. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the legal position regarding the liability to Central sales tax, to my mind, the mere charging to commission on the bardana is of no consequence and this submission lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. ( 12 ) THE second dispute between the parties relates to the taxability of inter-State sales of gur. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had remanded the case for consideration on this point to the assessing authority. Aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax tribunal against the aforesaid direction of remand and had argued the case on merits. Accepting the aforesaid submission of the assessee, the Tribunal had considered the materials on record and had arrived at the following conclusions: (1) The assessee had charged selling commission from his U. P. principal. Therefore it was clearly a sale, whether in U. P. or inter- State. (2) The learned counsel himself admits that it was a U. P. sales. But if it was so, there was no necessity of saying that the inter-State supply was in pursuance of verbal orders. (3) On one hand it is being claimed that it was a U. P. sale of gur and the ex-U. P. dealer purchased it in Pilibhit. On the other hand learned counsel has claimed exemption under the cover of Hanuman Trading Co. 1979 UPTC 809 which exempts only inter-State purchase. Both the claims have been raised in the same breath. (3) On one hand it is being claimed that it was a U. P. sale of gur and the ex-U. P. dealer purchased it in Pilibhit. On the other hand learned counsel has claimed exemption under the cover of Hanuman Trading Co. 1979 UPTC 809 which exempts only inter-State purchase. Both the claims have been raised in the same breath. (4) If the goods had been purchased by the ex-U. P. dealer in Pilibhit, they should have been despatched, even if he was obliging the ex-U. P. dealer, in the name of ex-U. P. dealer himself and not in his own name, simply because the assessee was not the owner of these goods. But he despatched these goods in his own name as a sender. (5) The certificates issued by the ex-U. P. dealers are dated 22nd August, 1981. This means that sales to them have been made before this date. But khata entries were made on 28th August, 1981. This was admitted. It could not be satisfactorily explained why entries were made so late. This leads to the conclusion that the certificates are not worth reliance. It would be clear from the above facts that the assessee charged selling commission from U. P. principals and therefore it was clearly a sale. In the definition of "sale" under the Central Sales tax Act sales by commission agents have also been included. The assessee himself despatched those goods to ex-U. P. buyers and charged commission from them also in the beejaks issued to them. These beejaks which were issued later on, i. e. , after 22nd August, 1981 show that the assessee despatched the goods in the course of inter-State trade and therefore the contention that u. P. sales were made is not accepted. This contention of the learned counsel also is therefore not accepted. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee has not been able to satisfy me that there is any error whatsoever in the aforesaid findings arrived at by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In this view of the matter, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal relating to the dispute of sale of gur. ( 14 ) IN the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay order dated 20th July, 1987 is hereby vacated. .