M. C. AGARWAL, J. These three revision petitions by the dealer raise a common point of controversy. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. T. T. R. No. 126 of 1999 relates to assessment year 1984-85 and is directed against the Tribunals order dated 9th March, 1998 passed in Second Appeal No. 174 of 1992. T. T. R. No. 128 of 1999 pertains to assessment year 1985-86 and is directed against the Tribunals same order dated 9th March, 1998 in Second Appeal No. 176 of 1992. T. T. R. No. 127 of 1999 pertains to assessment year 1986-87 and is directed against the Tribunals order dated 10th March, 1998 passed in Second Appeal No. 440 of 1992. 3. The dealer-revisionist is a manufacturer of country liquor, Indian made foreign liquor, rectified spirit, etc. , having a distillery at Meerut in the State of U. P. The revisionist is a company having its head office at 20, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi and is a registered dealer at Delhi also. The Delhi Administration invited tenders for the supply of 50 degree up (under proof) rum and in all the three years the present dealers tender was accepted and it was granted L1-A licence. Agreements for all the years were executed between the President of India through the Commissioner of Excise, Delhi and M/s. Central Distillery & Breweries Ltd. , 20, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi. The terms of the agreements in all the three years are identical and, therefore, I would refer to the important terms, as contained in the agreement dated 27th of December, 1984, copy of which has been annexed to the T. T. R. No. 126 of 1999. The agreement was for the supply of the said rum for retail sale at the Government run country- liquor-cum-beer vends in the Union Territory of Delhi. The agreement was for the supply of the said rum for retail sale at the Government run country- liquor-cum-beer vends in the Union Territory of Delhi. The dealer has been described as a licensee and it has been stated that it has applied for the licence in form L1-A. Clause 8 of the agreement which provides that the Collector of Excise, Delhi will place fortnightly orders at the Delhi office for supply of 50 degree up rum specifying the date by which the particular quantities must be supplied and shall further give instructions from time to time, as to the particular retail vends where different quantities must be delivered to be so ordered in accordance with such directions. Clause 9 (a) requires that the licensee shall always keep a minimum buffer stock of two truck loads of 50 degree up rum and initially the licensee shall build up the buffer stock within 15 days of the licence. Clause 12 says that all imports of liquor into Union Territory of Delhi shall be under the import permits issued by the Collector or any other officer authorised by him in this respect and all imports shall be covered by the bond as required by section 16 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. Clause 13 provides that the licensee shall import liquor into the Union Territory of Delhi on execution of a bond for payment of special duty. Clause 15 provides that the licensee shall observe the provisions of the Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976. Clauses 16 and 17 which are important are reproduced below : " 16. The Government does not guarantee purchase of any specified quantity of 50 degree up rum during the year or during any portion of it and the licensee shall not be entitled to any compensation or relief on the ground that sufficient orders were not placed. The Government will also be at liberty to purchase and sell different quantities of country liquor, beer or any other liquor at their discretion and the licensee shall not be entitled to any compensation or relief on this account. 17. (a) The licensee shall pay the licence fee of Rs. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand only) within a period of seven days of the date of the communication to him of acceptance of the tender. 17. (a) The licensee shall pay the licence fee of Rs. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand only) within a period of seven days of the date of the communication to him of acceptance of the tender. (b) The licensee shall make a security deposit of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand only) if he is not granted the use of Government bonded warehouse or of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) if he is granted such use in the manner prescribed under rule 1 of the Rules, and shall execute a personal bond with security in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the Collector. The licensee shall not have any right to the use of Government bonded warehouse at any time during the currency of the year 1984-85 and the Government shall not be liable to pay any price or compensation in lieu thereof or make good any loss which the licensee may suffer on this account. If the licensee is allowed the use of bonded warehouse established by the Government, he shall pay the rent as may be fixed by the Collector and shall bear all expenses connected with its use as a bonded warehouse. " Clause 18 requires that the licensee shall open the licensed premises for business only during such hours as the Commissioner may specify for L1-A license. 4. The dispute is about the taxability of the rum supplied to the Delhi Administration under the agreements for the three years in question. The extent of the turnover on this account is Rs. 27,54,827, Rs. 40,84,500 and Rs. 15,97,067 in the three years, respectively. The dealers contention was that the sales of beer to the Delhi Administration were made at Delhi from the dealers depot and, therefore, these were sales effected within the territory of Delhi and were not inter-State sales. This contention of the dealer has not been accepted. 27,54,827, Rs. 40,84,500 and Rs. 15,97,067 in the three years, respectively. The dealers contention was that the sales of beer to the Delhi Administration were made at Delhi from the dealers depot and, therefore, these were sales effected within the territory of Delhi and were not inter-State sales. This contention of the dealer has not been accepted. The contention of the revenue has been that the dealers manufacturing activity is at Meerut within the State of U. P. and admittedly the goods in question were taken to Delhi from the State of U. P. to be supplied to the Delhi Administration in pursuance of the agreements, referred to above, and, therefore, the goods moved to Delhi in pursuance of the said agreements which occasioned the movement of goods from U. P. to Delhi and, therefore, the transactions amounted to inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This contention of the revenue has been upheld throughout and now the dealer has come to this Court in these revision petitions. 5. I have heard Sri M. Manglik, learned counsel for the dealer-revisionist and Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the Commissioner-respondent. 6. According to section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 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. In the present case it is clause (a) which has been invoked by the revenue as according to it the purchase by the Delhi Administration occasioned the movement of goods that were manufactured in U. P. from U. P. to the territory of Delhi. It may be mentioned that it is not a case in which the existence of a depot at Delhi may be in doubt. In fact other sales made by the dealer in the territory of Delhi through its depot at Delhi have been accepted as intra-State sales in the State of Delhi. It may be mentioned that it is not a case in which the existence of a depot at Delhi may be in doubt. In fact other sales made by the dealer in the territory of Delhi through its depot at Delhi have been accepted as intra-State sales in the State of Delhi. The revenues entire emphasis has been on the agreements executed between the Delhi Administration and the dealer and it has not collected any other evidence which establishes that on the orders being placed by the Delhi Administration, the goods were despatched from the distillery at Meerut in performance of those orders. The Tribunal has placed reliance on Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC); 1986 UPTC 105 and learned counsel for the Commissioner also placed reliance on the same judgment. In that case the dealer manufactured standard goods according to the specifications of the buyers. The dealers manufacturing unit was located at Hyderabad while its branch offices were situate at Bombay, Calcutta and Coimbatore. These branch offices received the orders, communicated the same to the factory at Hyderabad, the manufactured goods were then despatched to the dealers branch offices where they were inspected by the customers and accepted by them. The branches raised the bills and received the sale price. The contention of the dealer was that the sales were effected in the State where the branches were situated while the contention of the Revenue was that the sales were inter-State sales. The honourable Supreme Court held that the sales were inter-State sales as it were the orders placed by the purchaser that occasioned the movement of the goods. The principle of law as explained by the honourable Supreme Court is not open to any doubt or explanation. However, it is apparent that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts of the present case while applying the ratio of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court. In the case before the Supreme Court, the buyers had placed purchase orders on the dealer and it was in compliance of A those orders that the goods were manufactured and despatched. In the present case, however, it has not been so established The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the nature of the agreement executed between the Delhi Administration and the dealer-revisionist. In the present case, however, it has not been so established The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the nature of the agreement executed between the Delhi Administration and the dealer-revisionist. The agreement, that has been referred to above, was not an agreement of purchase of any quantity of rum. The agreement was merely to grant a licence to the dealer to supply rum to the retail vends in Delhi. The orders for the actual purchase and sale were to be placed subsequently by the Collector at fortnightly intervals and the licensee was required to keep a buffer stock of atleast two truck loads at warehouse, within the territory of Delhi. Clause 18 of the agreement required the dealer to have a licensed premises within the State of Delhi for which purpose it could be allowed the user of a bonded warehouse established by the Government on payment of the specified rent and furnishing of a security deposit. Clause 16 specifically stated that by virtue of this agreement, the Government does not guarantee purchase of any specified quantity of 50 degree up rum during the year or during any portion of it and the licensee shall not be entitled to any compensation or relief on the ground that the sufficient orders were not placed. Thus, any transfer of goods from U. P. to the territory of Delhi to maintain the required stock and to be able to supply the goods, that may be ordered by the Delhi Administration, could not be treated as a transaction of sale that occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another. The transport of goods from U. P. to Delhi was only in contemplation of the orders that could be placed in pursuance of the licence granted in terms of the agreement. 7. The judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Cement Distributors (P.) Ltd. [1975] 36 STC 389 seems to be more appropriate to the issue in question. In that case the dealer, i. e. , Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. was acting as an agent of the State Trading Corporation. Under the cement control order all manufacturers were required to sell cement to the State Trading Corporation. In that case the dealer, i. e. , Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. was acting as an agent of the State Trading Corporation. Under the cement control order all manufacturers were required to sell cement to the State Trading Corporation. On November, 22, 1961 the Regional Cement, Officer of the State Trading Corporation in Tamil Nadu authorised the dealer M/s. Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to sell the quantity of cement mentioned in the authorisation note to persons directed by the Regional Cement Officer of the State Trading Corporation, Calcutta. The factory which were to supply the cement was mentioned as the Daimiapuram Factory. In pursuance of the said authorisation, the cement was despatched from Daimiapuram to Calcutta. Subsequently, the Regional Cement Officer, Calcutta authorised the dealer to supply the cement to Executive Engineer, Howrah Division, Calcutta. The question was whether the sale of cement to the said Executive Engineer was inter-State sale or an intra-State sale effected at Calcutta. The honourable Supreme Court held that it was an intra-State sale. The honourable Supreme Court observed as under : " In the present case, the goods are despatched by the respondent to themselves at Calcutta according to the directions of the State trading Corporation. This was for consumption in Calcutta area as will appear from the authorisation-dated November 4, 1961. The other authorisation letter dated November 22, 1961, was issued, after the arrival of the goods, by the Regional Cement Officer, Calcutta, authorising the respondent to sell cement. It is apparent that there was no movement of goods by the respondent-company as a result of a contract of sale between the respondent and the buyer at Calcutta. The shipment was made by the respondent-company without any reference to any buyer. The movement of goods from Madras to Calcutta did not take place as a result of any contract of sale, but in pursuance of instruction contained in authorisation for transfer of stocks from Madras to Calcutta. The transactions were not inter-State sales liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The movement of goods from one State to another without any of the elements of sale within the meaning of the Central Act cannot be subject to tax. The shipment was movement of stocks of cement belonging to the State Trading Corporation from one place to another. There was shortage of supply of cement at Calcutta. The movement of goods from one State to another without any of the elements of sale within the meaning of the Central Act cannot be subject to tax. The shipment was movement of stocks of cement belonging to the State Trading Corporation from one place to another. There was shortage of supply of cement at Calcutta. The State Trading Corporation moved stocks from Madras to Calcutta. The area of need and the availability of stocks of cement were known to the State Trading Corporation. The transactions could not be subjected to Central sales tax. " 8. Another case that throws light on the matter is Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [19701 26 STC 354 (SC) In that case TELCO had dealers in various States to whom the vehicles were supplied for sale to the buyers. The question was whether the sales effected to the dealers were inter-State sales or intra-State sales. The honourable Supreme Court has observed that the procedure followed by the appellant together with the proved absence of any firm orders, indicated that the allocation letters and the statements furnished by the dealers did not by themselves bring about transactions of sale within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the Act. The completion of the sales to the dealers did not take place at the works at Jamshedpur, appropriation of the vehicles was done at the stock- yards and it was open to the appellant till then to allot any vehicle to any purchaser and to transfer a vehicle from one stock-yard to another. It could not therefore be said that the movement of the vehicles from the works to the stock-yards was occasioned by any covenant or incident of the contract of sale. 9. AS is evident from the terms of the agreement, the intention of the parties was to bring about intra-State sales at Delhi from warehouse of the dealer that it was required to establish within the territory of Delhi where the dealer was required to maintain a buffer stock of atleast two trucks without any guarantee of any purchase being actually made by the Delhi Administration. As and when the Delhi Administration would make the purchases, the dealer A who was to be a L1-A licensee would supply the goods and replenish the stocks and the things would go on like that during the currency of the agreement. Therefore, as is indicated by the agreement, the movement of the goods to Delhi was not in pursuance of any transaction of sale but in pursuance of the licence under which the dealer was to maintain a warehouse with a minimum stock B within the territory of Delhi. The agreement by itself did not bring about any sale or purchase and, therefore, the transport of goods from the distillery in U. P. to warehouse in Delhi could not be treated as a movement of goods occasioned by any sale or purchase. The sale, as stated above, took place only when any order was actually placed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. As stated above, the assessing officer has not probed further into the matter to find out if there was no buffer stock at Delhi and the goods were transported from the distillery only on receipt of the orders. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the supply of rum to the Delhi Administration in the three years resulted in any inter-State sales taxable in State of U. P. The findings of the authorities below are based on a misconception about the nature of the agreements dated 27th of December, 1984 which, as stated above, did not bring about any sale or purchase. The Tribunals finding, therefore, that the dispute turnover was taxable as inter-State sales suffers from a legal error and is hereby set aside. I hold that it is not established that the turnover, referred to above, represented inter-State sales and it was, therefore, not taxable as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act. 10. It was also contended that the Delhi Administration had issued form D in respect of these purchases which indicated that these were inter-State transactions. In my view this is immaterial. Form D only declares that the purchases have been made on behalf of Government. There is no declaration that they were the result of inter-State sales or purchases. Therefore, the declarations issued by the Delhi Administration cannot conclude the issue against the assessee. 11. In my view this is immaterial. Form D only declares that the purchases have been made on behalf of Government. There is no declaration that they were the result of inter-State sales or purchases. Therefore, the declarations issued by the Delhi Administration cannot conclude the issue against the assessee. 11. The revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and it is held that the disputed turnover is not liable to Central sales tax as inter-State sales. 12. An authenticated copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Trade Tax Tribunal for passing consequential orders, in accordance with law. Petitions allowed.