S. N. TIWARI, J. Heard. With the consent of the parties all these revision are being decided together. It is undisputed that respondents in all the three revisions were working as commission agent and were registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 S. T. R. No. 82 of 1988, under the U. P. Sales Tax Act relates to the assessment year 1977-78, S. T. R. No. 371 of 1988 (under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) relates to the assessment year 1976-77 and S. T. R. No. 372 of 1988 (under the U. P. Sales Tax Act) relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The only dispute relates to alleged purchases made by the dealer on behalf of ex-U. P. principal S. T. R. No. 82 of 1968 relates to the judgment delivered in Appeal No. 132 of 1982 on September 17, 1987 while other two revisions relate to Appeal Nos. 214 of 1983 and 294 of 1983 (U. P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, respectively) relates to the judgment delivered on September 9, 1987. In all the three appeals the Tribunal held that the disputed transactions are purchases in the course of inter-State trade and mere issue of certificate under section 3c (1) makes no difference. 2. 214 of 1983 and 294 of 1983 (U. P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, respectively) relates to the judgment delivered on September 9, 1987. In all the three appeals the Tribunal held that the disputed transactions are purchases in the course of inter-State trade and mere issue of certificate under section 3c (1) makes no difference. 2. In reply learned Standing Counsel contended that in view of section 12a (2) as amended by Act No. 28 of 1991 the certificate should be treated as conclusive evidence to prove the liability of the dealer as regards his claim that he is not liable to tax under section 3-D or section 12a (2) : " Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to tax under section 3-D in respect of any transaction of purchases - (a) any declaration made or certificate issued by him admitting to be the first purchaser and accepting the liability to pay purchase tax, shall be conclusive evidence of his liability to pay the purchase tax in respect of the transaction specified in such declaration or certificate : (b) the burden of proving the existence of facts and circumstances on the basis of which he claims such exemption from liability shall lie upon him, and, in particular, the dealer shall also be liable to disclose full particulars of the person from whom he has purchased the goods in such transaction of purchase; and (c) no such claim shall be accepted unless reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the person whose particulars are disclosed by such dealer. " 3. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent contends that they are not claiming exemption under section 3-D of the Act and, therefore, the presumption under section 12-A of the Act could not be raised against them. It is a fact that in all the cases the Tribunal gave a finding of fact that the transactions were purchases in the course of inter-state trade. It was argued that the transaction was covered under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the dealers are not claiming exemption under section 3-D of the Act. It is a fact that in all the cases the Tribunal gave a finding of fact that the transactions were purchases in the course of inter-state trade. It was argued that the transaction was covered under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the dealers are not claiming exemption under section 3-D of the Act. In support of this contention a reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. Radhey Shyam Kedar Nath, Hamirpur 1996 UPTC 1132 where this Court observed as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . Such purchases on commission agency would be in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and, therefore, could not be taxed under section 3-D of the Act inasmuch as such transactions would be covered by section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. " 4. Learned counsel for the dealer also referred the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Nand Kishore Chhaki Lal, Mauranipur 1995 UPTC 897. In that case the point raised was about the taxability of purchases for ex-U. P. principals. The Tribunal has held that such purchases were in the course of inter-State trade and, therefore, purchases were not taxable under the U. P. Trade Tax Act. This view has been affirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196; 1992 UPTC 971 (SC ). It was held that the Tribunals decision on this point is legal and does not require any interference. 5. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196; 1992 UPTC 971, observed as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . . where a sale or purchase, though effected within the State of U. P. occasion the movement of goods sold/purchased thereunder from the State of U. P. to other State, it becomes an inter-State sale. Such a sale cannot be taxed by the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh. It is taxable only under the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956. " 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1978] 41 STC 147; 1977 UPTC 81 observed as follows : ". . . . . . . It is taxable only under the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956. " 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1978] 41 STC 147; 1977 UPTC 81 observed as follows : ". . . . . . . Now, it is not disputed that the State can charge only such tax as is permissible under the law. Liability to tax does not depend on the fact as to whether a dealer has or has not charged any sales tax from its customers, or has charged a higher amount. Thus, if a sale is liable to be charged at a lower rate, the State cannot insist on realising a higher amount solely on the ground of a large amount being charge. Relief can be given when an illegal impost not authorised by the law is made. . . . . . " 7. In view of the above case laws it is clear that the dealer has claimed that the transaction was covered under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and was not claimed exemption under section 3-D of the Act. Since the claim of the dealer does not relate to section 3-D of the Act, the provisions of section 12-A cannot be applied and no presumption can be raised as provided therein. TThe arguments of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, is not acceptable. It is concluded by a finding of fact that the impugned transactions were purchases in the course of inter-State trade and, therefore, they were not taxable according to the provisions of tax under section 3-D of the Act. The presumption, therefore, cannot be be raised under section 12-A in respect of the transactions therein. In the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1969] 24 STC 487 the Supreme Court observed as under : ". . . . . . If, apprehending that it may have to pay sales tax on the freight, the company collected sales tax on the freight, the true nature of the contract between the company and the purchasers could not on that account be altered. . . . . . If, apprehending that it may have to pay sales tax on the freight, the company collected sales tax on the freight, the true nature of the contract between the company and the purchasers could not on that account be altered. That the company might be liable to refund the amount of excess sales tax to its purchasers was a matter between the company and the purchasers and the State could not seek to levy tax on railway freight if it was not made part of the price. " 8. In all the three cases the mere deposit of tax would not change the legal position. In view of the above, these revisions have no force and are dismissed. Cost on the parties. Copy of this order be placed in records of S. T. R. Nos. 371 of 1988 and 372 of 1988. Petitions dismissed. .