JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J. - These six reference cases, constituting a batch, arise from the demand of purchase tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 on certain transactions of chillies. 2. The chillies were sold and supplied by the cultivators and chilli growers and they finally went to parties outside the State of Bihar. The dealers against whom the demand of purchase tax is raised by the department (M/s Megraj Sanchialal in Tax Case Nos. 65 to 69 of 1982) and (M/s Narain Co. in batch case No. 24/82) appear to stand in the middle of the transaction. The department maintains that each transaction comprised of two distinctly separate incidents of sale and purchase; in the first instance the dealer purchased the chillies from the growers and in the second phase of the transaction he sold them to a party outside the State. So far as the second sale (by the dealer to party outside the State) is concerned, it being an inter-State sale was exempt from tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. But on the first sale of the chillies the dealer was liable to pay purchase tax under the provisions of the Act. According to the dealers they had neither purchased the chillies from the growers nor sold them to the parties outside the State, the incident of sale was only one, between the grower sellers and the outside parties. The dealers had merely brought about the sale acting only as an agent at once of the grower sellers and the outside buyers; for selling the chillies for the grower sellers and for purchasing them on behalf of the outside buyers, the dealers had charged certain commission from both the principals, namely, the grower sellers and the outside buyers. 3. In the case of M/s Megraj Sanchialal the Assessing Officer had initially agreed with the dealer's contention and had accepted the turnover in question as representing inter-State sale not liable to tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. Subsequently, however, he revised the earlier orders under section 18(1) of the Act holding that those amounts were price of the chillies purchased by the dealer over which he was liable to pay purchase tax under the Bihar Act. Subsequently, however, he revised the earlier orders under section 18(1) of the Act holding that those amounts were price of the chillies purchased by the dealer over which he was liable to pay purchase tax under the Bihar Act. Separate though similar orders were passed by the Assessing Officer, relating to different assessment periods and in respect of the different branches of the dealer and as a consequence the dealer filed a number of analogous appeals before the Additional Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Purnea. The Appellate authority affirmed the assessment orders and dismissed the dealer's appeal. The dealer then filed five revision application relating to different assessment periods and in respect of its different branches before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. Those revisions were allowed by the tribunal by judgment and order dated September 8, 1978. In its judgment the tribunal upheld the dealer's case and found that there was a single sale and purchase transaction between the principal seller (the grower) and the principal buyer (the buyer outside the State) where in the dealer had acted both as the agent of the selling principal and the purchasing principal. The tribunal also held that sale had occasioned the movement of the goods from this State to another State and hence it was an inter-State sale within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and was therefore exempt from payment of tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. 4. In the case of M/s Narain & Co., on similar facts and circumstances an assessment order was passed raising the demand for payment of purchase tax on the alleged purchase of chillies by the dealer. The assessment order was affirmed by, the appellate authority. The dealer then preferred a revision which was registered as Revision Case No. 362/75 before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. The dealer's revision was allowed by the tribunal by judgment and order dated March 30, 1979. From this judgment it appears that the Tribunal found that the case of this dealer (M/s Narayan & Co.) was fully covered by the Tribunal's judgment dated September 8, 1978 passed in the Revision Case filed on behalf of M/s Meghraj Sanchialal and following that decision allowed the case of this dealer also in the same terms. 5. From this judgment it appears that the Tribunal found that the case of this dealer (M/s Narayan & Co.) was fully covered by the Tribunal's judgment dated September 8, 1978 passed in the Revision Case filed on behalf of M/s Meghraj Sanchialal and following that decision allowed the case of this dealer also in the same terms. 5. In all these cases the department filed petitions under section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal allowed the petitions filed by the department and drawing up the statements of case referred the following two common questions of law, in all these cases, for the opinion of this court. (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that there was only one inter-State sale and purchase transaction between the principal sellers (cultivators) and the principal buyers (outside Bihar-dealers) and the Opposite party had two identities one as an agent of the cultivators and the other as an agent of the outside Bihar buyers is correct and valid in law? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there were two independent sales one in Bihar by the cultivators to the Opposite party and another inter-State sale by the Opposite party to the buyers outside Bihar? 6. In Tax Case Nos.65 to 69 of 1982 M/s Meghraj Sanchialal is the dealer-respondent. These cases relate to Assessment periods 1966-67 and 1967 -68 in respect of the Khagaria branch of the firm and the assessment periods 1967-68 to 1969-70 in respect of the Phulwaria (Barauni) branch of the firm. 7. In Tax Case No. 24 of 1982 M/s Narian Co. is the dealer-respondent. This case relates to the assessment period 1969-70 in respect of the firm's place of business at Barauni. 8. As these cases, giving rise to common questions of law, arise from the same facts and circumstances, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. With the consent of the parties the main arguments were advanced before us in the case of M/s Meghraj Sanchialal because the material facts and circumstances have been noticed in much greater detail in the tribunal's judgment passed in those cases. The case of M/s Narain Co. was allowed simply with reference to the tribunal's decision in Sanchialal's case. 9. With the consent of the parties the main arguments were advanced before us in the case of M/s Meghraj Sanchialal because the material facts and circumstances have been noticed in much greater detail in the tribunal's judgment passed in those cases. The case of M/s Narain Co. was allowed simply with reference to the tribunal's decision in Sanchialal's case. 9. The members of the Tribunal gave concurring but separate judgments in Sanchialal's case. Shri C.P. Sinha the Tribunal's Chairman in his judgment examined in detail, and from beginning to end, a typical transaction forming the subject matter of the controversy. From the entries made in the dealer's Dakpatti it appeared that on 4.1.1967 one Sukhdeo Poddar of Labhgaon brought two bags of chillies weighing 1 maund 25½ seers to the dealer's Arhat. The sale note number 1766, dated Paus Badi 8 of 2023 (corresponding to 4167) showed the name of the seller Sukhdeo Poddar, Labh Gaon. It also mentioned two bags of chillies weighing 1 maund 25½ seers, less one seer, six chattaks, net one md. 23 seers, 14 chattaks. The price• of the chillies was calculated at Rs. 164.47 @ Rs. 103 per maund but payment was made of Rs. 159.35 paise only after deducting Rs. 5.22 paise as commission. At the top of the sale note (which was in a printed form), "H.B. Mian Gaon" was written in hand in English. It was explained to the tribunal that H.B. stood for Himmate Lal Bhikhabhai, an outside State dealer, at Mian Gaon, Gujrat. The details given in the sale note no. 1766 corresponded with entry no. 114 made in the maljama Bahi on 4.1.1967. The name of Himmat Lal Bhikhabhai, Mian Gaon was written in the 'Peta' of this entry. Rokar dated 4.1.1967 showed a debit for cash payment of Rs. 159.35 paise in the name of Sukhdeo Poddar of Labh Gaon. Challani Bahi showed an entry of credit memo no. 225, dated 10.1.1967 in the name of M/s Himmat Lal Bhikhabhai of Mian Gaon. This credit memo was for Rs. 14,458.80 paise as detailed below:- Cost of 125 bags of chillies Rs.13,457.51 Arhat Rs. 221.51 Challani Expenses Rs. 76.23 Bharmadha Goshala etc. Rs. 31.36 Rs.13,768.61 Phus Amanat Rs. 672.87 Rs.14,441.48 The amount of Rs. 225, dated 10.1.1967 in the name of M/s Himmat Lal Bhikhabhai of Mian Gaon. This credit memo was for Rs. 14,458.80 paise as detailed below:- Cost of 125 bags of chillies Rs.13,457.51 Arhat Rs. 221.51 Challani Expenses Rs. 76.23 Bharmadha Goshala etc. Rs. 31.36 Rs.13,768.61 Phus Amanat Rs. 672.87 Rs.14,441.48 The amount of Rs. 672.87 shown as Amanat (in trust) was explained to the tribunal as the amount of Central Sales Tax chargeable @ 2% on inter-State sales to registered dealer on furnishing declarations in form 'C'. It was further .explained before the tribunal that since the dealer had challenged the liability of even the Central Sales Tax on such sales the amount was realised only as security in case the decision went against the dealer. In the aforementioned credit memo in the 'peta' there were a large number of entries in respect of different purchases of chillies, recording the names of the principal sellers, weight of chillies, the rates at which the purchases were made etc. The purchase of chillies from M/s Sukhdeo Poddar of Labh Gaon on 4.1.1967 for Rs.164.47 also found a mention among those entries in the credit memo. This credit memo thus covered the purchases from different parties from 23.12.1966 to 10.1.1967. The chillies were despatched to M/s Himmat Lal Bhikhabhai of Mian Gaon (Gujrat) on 10.1.1967. from Khagaria Railway Station vide R.R.No. 891748, dated 10.1.1967. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal found that the purchase notes issued to the outside buyer showed the same price of chillies as shown in the sale notes issued to the cultivator-sellers. What the dealer, acting as an agent paid to the principal, sellers, was only charged to the principal buyer; thus there being no difference in the amounts charged from the principal buyer and paid to the principal seller there was no question of any purchase by the dealer and a subsequent sale by him to the outside buyer in terms of the explanation to section 2(p) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. On the aforesaid facts' and circumstances the learned Chairman drew the following inferences : "The facts of the case as has emerged from the above discussions is that the petitioner is a commission agent. The agriculturists who produced chillies brought their goods for sale to the petitioner's Arhat. On the aforesaid facts' and circumstances the learned Chairman drew the following inferences : "The facts of the case as has emerged from the above discussions is that the petitioner is a commission agent. The agriculturists who produced chillies brought their goods for sale to the petitioner's Arhat. He arranges sale of such goods as a commission agent acting on behalf of the principal sellers, i.e. agriculturists. The petitioners also acted as a commission agent for the purpose of buying chillies on behalf of the dealers outside the State. He charged commission (Arhat) from both the principal sellers and the principal buyers for acting as their selling agent and purchasing agent respectively. The sale notes which were issued to the agriculturists show the names of sellers, the quantity, rate and price of chillies as also deduction made by the petitioner on account of his arhat charges. These sale notes also mention the name of the principal buyers on whose behalf he made purchases of chillies. Again the Dakpatti shows the names of principal sellers and weight, rate and price of chillies date-wise. In the peta of these Dakpatti entries, names of principal purchasers have also been mentioned. Similarly the challani bahi shows the amount of purchases made on behalf of outside purchasers. In the peta of these entries details of goods purchased, names of the principal sellers from whom the goods were purchased, the weight, rate and price of the chillies have been mentioned. It is true that the goods have not been despatched on the date of purchase. The chillies were dried before •re-packing and despatch. The despatches were made after certain purchases were made on behalf of a particular outside purchaser for a few days and when a Truck load or Wagon load of such goods were purchased and when these transports were available for despatch. The purchase notes sent to principal buyers outside the State against each despatch, shows the details of weight, rate and price of chillies purchased from every principal seller. Price mentioned in the purchase notes are identical with those shown in the sale notes issued to the principal sellers." 10. The tribunal accordingly recorded a finding that each transaction consisted of a single sale and purchase between the principal sellers and the principal buyers wherein the dealer acted as an agent at once both of the grower-sellers and the outside buyers. 11. The tribunal accordingly recorded a finding that each transaction consisted of a single sale and purchase between the principal sellers and the principal buyers wherein the dealer acted as an agent at once both of the grower-sellers and the outside buyers. 11. The first question referred to this court thus appears to be concluded by a finding of fact and nothing has been pointed out to us to warrant any interference by this court while exercising jurisdiction under section 33 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. 12. So far as the second question is concerned the Tribunal has found that the movement of the chillies from this State to another State was an incident to the sale and there was no break between the sale and the movement of the goods and therefore the sale qualified as an inter State sale and was exempt from tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The finding arrived at by the tribunal is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Cooperative Sugar (Chittur) Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R.1994 S.C.1456. 14. In the result, I would answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative, that is to say, both the questions are answered in favour of the dealers and against the department. 14. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. S.N. Jha, J. -I agree.