JUDGMENT M. C. Agarwal, J. - This revision petition under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is directed against an order dated November 30, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur whereby it dismissed the second appeal of the dealer-revisionist arising out of assessment for assessment year 1974-75. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The assessee is a dealer in hides and skins. It purchases raw hides and by curing and tanning the raw hides it converts them into leather which is sold by it. For the year under consideration it had disclosed its gross turnover at Rs. 60,42,610 and taxable turnover at Rs. 28,87,103.26. It had duly filed its return and paid tax on the turnover declared as taxable. On the taxable turnover the dealer had realised a sum of Rs. 78,448 as sales tax from the customers to whom the goods were sold. The assessing officer determined taxable turnover at Rs. 29,20,680. The revisionist then filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) contending that it had purchased raw hides and skins from registered dealers without issuing form 3A and that he sold the same to its customers in the same condition. The contention of the revisionist was that the curing and tanning of the skins did not change their nature and in spite of these processes they would be deemed to have been sold in the same condition. The revisionist's further contention was that it having not issued any form 3A to the selling dealer the sale by the selling dealer would be deemed to be a sale to a consumer and hides and skins being declared goods and being taxable at the point of sale to the consumer, it was the selling dealer who was liable to pay sales tax and subsequent sales could not be taxed. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that raw hides and skins and cured and tanned skins are different commodities and could be taxed separately. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the dealer himself had accepted the tax liability in respect of the aforesaid sales and that the goods having been sold after changing their condition by curing and tanning, the dealer could not claim exemption from sales tax on these sales. The dealer then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal making same assertion. The dealer then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal making same assertion. The Tribunal held that it was not established that the goods pertaining to the sales in question were purchased from the registered dealers. The Tribunal held that the sales in question were liable to be taxed under section 3-AA of the Act and the assessee's case is not covered by section 3-AAA and section 3-AAAA. The Tribunal also observed that the dealer had not shown that its selling dealer had paid any tax on the sales made to the dealer. The Tribunal also observed that there was no evidence to show that the persons who sold the goods to the assessee were dealers within the meaning of section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal also held that because of section 29-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act the amount realised by the dealer as sales tax could not be refunded. Hides and skins, whether in raw or dressed state are declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time reads as under : "Section 3-AA. Rate and point of tax in respect of certain goods. - Subject to the provisions of section 3-D, the turnover in respect of goods declared under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce shall not be liable to tax except at the point of sale by a dealer to the consumer, and the rate of tax shall be such, not exceeding the maximum rate for the time being specified in section 15 of the said Act, as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare." According to the aforesaid provision sales of declared goods are subject to a single point tax at the time of sale to the consumer and the rate of tax would be such as may be specified by the Government by issue of a notification. Section 3-AAA prescribes condition in which certain sales shall be deemed to be sales to a consumer. This provision reads as under : "Section 3-AAA. Presumption regarding certain sales. Section 3-AAA prescribes condition in which certain sales shall be deemed to be sales to a consumer. This provision reads as under : "Section 3-AAA. Presumption regarding certain sales. - Where goods are liable to tax under this Act only at the point of sale to consumer, every sale by a dealer - (a) to a registered dealer who does not purchase them for resale, within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; in the same form and condition in which he has purchased them, or (b) to any person other than a registered dealer; shall be deemed to be a sale to the consumer, unless the dealer proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessing authority and for that purpose also furnishes to the assessing authority such declaration, obtained from the purchasing dealer, in such form and manner and within such period, as may be prescribed." Thus, while section 3-AA says that sales of certain goods would be taxable only at the point of sale to the consumer. Section 3-AAA prescribes which sales will be deemed to be sales to a consumer. Then comes section 3-AAAA which has been amended by U.P. Ordinance No. 7 of 1994 substituting a new section with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974. The substituted section 3-AAAA reads as under : "3-AAAA. Liability to tax on purchase of goods in certain circumstances. Section 3-AAA prescribes which sales will be deemed to be sales to a consumer. Then comes section 3-AAAA which has been amended by U.P. Ordinance No. 7 of 1994 substituting a new section with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974. The substituted section 3-AAAA reads as under : "3-AAAA. Liability to tax on purchase of goods in certain circumstances. - Subject to the provision of section 3, every dealer who purchases any goods liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer - (a) from any registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax is payable by such registered dealer, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate at which, but for such circumstances, tax would have been payable on the sale of such goods; (b) from any person other than a registered dealer whether or not tax is payable by such person, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate at which tax is payable on the sale of such goods : Provided that no tax shall be leviable on the purchase price of such goods in the circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) and (b), if - (i) such goods purchased from a registered dealer have already been subjected to tax or may be subjected to tax under section 3-AAA; (ii) tax has already been paid in respect of such goods purchased from any person other than a registered dealer; (iii) the purchasing dealer resells such goods within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or exports out of the territory of India, in the same form and condition in which he had purchased them; (iv) such goods are liable to be exempted under section 4-A of the Act. Explanation. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section and of section 3-AAA the sale of - (i) ginned cotton after ginning raw cotton purchased as aforesaid; or (ii) dressed hides and skins or tanned leather after dressing or tanning raw hides and skins purchased as aforesaid; or (iii) rice during the period commencing on September 2, 1976 and ending with April 30, 1977, after hulling paddy purchased as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be in the same form and condition." A reading of the aforesaid substituted section would indicate that a purchasing dealer is liable to pay tax on the purchase price of goods that are liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer except in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso. The revisionist's contention was that it purchased the hides and skins from registered dealers without furnishing form 3A and, therefore, the selling dealers may be subjected to tax under section 3-AAA and that the revisionist sold them in the same form and condition in which he had purchased them, thus, complying with clauses (i) and (iii) of the proviso. The revisionist also relies on the explanation which says that the dressed hides and skins or tanned leather after dressing or tanning raw hides and skins purchased as aforesaid shall be deemed to be in the same form and condition. Rule 12-A(1) and (2) provide that a registered dealer who purchases 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 3-A duly filled and signed by him and a sale of 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 that purpose also furnishes to the assessing authority a certificate in form 3A. According to the revisionist it purchased the goods from the registered dealers but did not issue form 3A and, therefore, and sales to the revisionist by the selling dealers were taxable in the hands of the selling dealer. According to the revisionist it purchased the goods from the registered dealers but did not issue form 3A and, therefore, and sales to the revisionist by the selling dealers were taxable in the hands of the selling dealer. For this proposition reliance is placed on several judgments of this Court namely Sales Tax Officer v. Shahabuddin Zakir Hussain and Company 1970 UPTC 159 and Shahabuddin Zakir Hussain and Company v. Sales Tax Officer 1970 UPTC 187 and Riyasat Husain Hide Company v. Sales Tax Officer 1970 UPTC 467. In all these cases it was held that where the purchasing dealer had not furnished form 3A as required under rule 12-A the sales by the selling dealer would be deemed to be sales to a consumer and would be taxable in the hands of the selling dealer and further sales by purchasing dealer cannot be taxed. This proposition of law has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. However, the question is whether the revisionist purchased the goods from registered dealers so that the sales by such registered dealer to the revisionist could be treated as sales to a consumer. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the revisionist had failed to establish that the purchases of the goods in question were made from registered dealers. Learned counsel for the assessee challenged this finding and placed reliance on a list of purchases filed as annexure "1" to the affidavit in the present revision petition. It has been contended that this list was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The mere filing of such a list could not prove that the goods which were sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 28,87,103 were purchased from the registered dealers. It is to be remembered that the revisionist's total purchases were of the order of Rs. 60,48,526 and the list allegedly filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is in respect of purchases totalling Rs. 32,12,418.76 only. The list is titled "Details of raw hides purchased from registered dealers from April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975. It is to be remembered that the revisionist's total purchases were of the order of Rs. 60,48,526 and the list allegedly filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is in respect of purchases totalling Rs. 32,12,418.76 only. The list is titled "Details of raw hides purchased from registered dealers from April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975. The list does not say that it is the list of purchases without the issue of form 3A." Therefore, even on the revisionist's own showing, it was not established that the purchases in respect of goods, the sale of which was the subject-matter of taxation in this case, were purchased by the revisionist from registered dealers or that form 3A was not issued in respect thereof. The Tribunal's finding on this point is, therefore, based on the material on record and cannot be challenged. With this finding of fact the entire superstructure of the contention raised on behalf of the revisionist falls to the ground because in that event the sale by the revisionist would be treated as sales to consumers and it was not established that the goods had already been subjected to tax. The Tribunal has held that it was section 3-AA and not section 3-AAAA that was applicable to the facts of this case. This view does not seem to be correct. Section 3-AA does not levy any tax and is not the charging section. This section only prescribes restriction on taxes that may be levied by or under other sections of the Act. The conditions are that the goods shall be liable to tax at the point of sale to a consumer and the rate of tax shall not exceed certain limit. Therefore, there has to be another section under which the tax could be levied subject to the restriction of section 3-AA. It is section 3-AAAA that creates the liability for payment of tax in respect of goods liable to tax at the point of sale to the consumer. Thus, while section 3-AA states that the declared goods shall be liable to tax at the point of sale to the consumer only, it is section 3-AAAA which says under what circumstances those goods would be liable to tax and under what circumstances the sale thereof would be exempt. Thus, while section 3-AA states that the declared goods shall be liable to tax at the point of sale to the consumer only, it is section 3-AAAA which says under what circumstances those goods would be liable to tax and under what circumstances the sale thereof would be exempt. Therefore, it was section 3-AAAA which could be invoked for subjecting the sales of goods in question to tax, though it had to be read along with the provisions of sections 3-AA and 3-AAA. As stated above, under the explanation to section 3-AAAA the dressed hides and skins or tanned leather after dressing or tanning raw hides and skins shall be deemed to be in the same form and condition. There was argument between the parties as to whether raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are one and the same thing. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist on State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders [1989] 73 STC 228 (SC); (1989) 28 STL 192 (SC) and a judgment of the honourable Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 896 of 1981 ([1991] 82 STC 355) (Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu). In my view because of the amendment of section 3-AAAA by U.P. Ordinance No. 7 of 1994 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974 this controversy stands legislatively settled and by virtue of the explanation raw hides and skins sold after dressing and tanning them would be deemed to have been sold in the same form and condition. In view of the finding of facts that the dealer had failed to establish that the goods in question were purchased from registered dealers and in the absence of any evidence that they had already suffered tax the, sale of such goods was liable to be taxed in accordance with section 3-AAAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. For the above reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.