R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision No. 499 of 1999 preferred under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (in short, called "the Act" hereinafter) against the order dated May 11, 1999 in Appeal Nos. 339/96 (1992-93) (U. P.), 340/96 (1992-93) (Central) as well as Trade Tax Revision No. 502 of 1999 preferred against the Second Appeal No. 218/96 (1992-93) (U. P. ). The assessing officer levied the trade tax of Rs. 11,25,000 which was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner by its order dated May 23, 1996 and the case was remanded for fresh assessment, against which the commissioner of Trade Tax preferred second appeal before learned Tribunal which by order dated May 11, 1999 allowed the appeal of the dealer and annulled the order of Trade Tax Officer and the assessee was declared non-taxable, for the year 1992-93 (U. P. ). ( 2 ) HEARD Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant/commissioner of Trade tax/revenue as well as Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent. ( 3 ) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present revisions are that the opposite party-dealer carried on business in "deshi ghee", "sugar", "batasa", etc. , of which Sri Brij bhushan was the sole proprietor. It appears for the assessment year 1992-93, the opposite party-dealer appeared before the assessing authority and produced complete books of accounts whereby total purchases were shown at Rs. 4,72,158 and sales at Rs. 4,40,319 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act. Since deshi ghee was liable to tax at the point of purchase under Section 3-D of "the Act" and such purchases had been made after furnishing form 3-Ga-2, i. e. , when the purchases were tax paid, no liability of tax on purchases was admitted even on the sales of sugar, batasa, etc. , and since no inter-State sales were made, no liability of tax under Central Sales Tax act was likewise admitted. , and since no inter-State sales were made, no liability of tax under Central Sales Tax act was likewise admitted. ( 4 ) AT the time of the assessment proceedings, however, the opposite party-dealer was confronted with survey report dated February 11, 1993 made by the Trade Tax Officer (S. I. B.) at the business premises of another dealer, namely, Gongol Dugdh Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. , gangol Road, Partapur, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as dealer "g") that they carried on the business of manufacture and sale of deshi ghee, butter, etc. , and that the sales were also made through Mapusa Trading Company, Goa (hereinafter referred to as dealer "m") as their selling agent. It was further informed that Sri Brij Bhushan was the proprietor of Mapusa Trading company, Goa. It was further stated that delivery of goods on behalf of dealer "m" was taken by one Alok Kumar and thereafter the goods were despatched to Goa for sales. Since Sri Brij bhushan was the sole proprietor of the business done in the name and style of the opposite party-dealer as also of dealer "m", it was believed that the opposite party-dealer himself took the delivery of the goods from dealer "g" at Meerut itself and thereafter the goods were sent to Goa. On these alleged facts, the assessment authority issued a show cause notice to the opposite party-dealer requiring him to explain as to why these transactions may not be treated to be the purchases of deshi ghee by the opposite party-dealer in U. P. and therefore, liable to tax under section 3-D of the "act" and on assumption that since the goods were sent to Goa and possibly to other places, the opposite party-dealer was also liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. ( 5 ) IN response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the opposite party-dealer filed reply wherein it was first submitted that the aforesaid Alok Kumar had nothing to do with the opposite party-dealer, secondly, since reliance was being placed on the statement of the employees of the dealer "g" at Meerut, they may be produced before the opposite party-dealer for their cross-examination before their statement could be relied upon and thirdly that the sales having been made directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m" on commission basis the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to treat the opposite party-dealer as liable to tax either under "the Act" or under the Central Sales Tax Act. ( 6 ) THE assessing authority, however, rejected the contention of the opposite party-dealer and held that alleged purchases of deshi ghee by the opposite party-dealer from dealer "g" were liable to tax under Section 3-D of the Act. It was further held that on inquiries, it was found that dealer "m" had likewise also acted as selling agent of two other dealers, i. e. , Moradabad Sahkari Dugdh utpadan Samiti, Dalpatpur, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as "moradabad dealer") and kanpur Dugdh Utpadan Samiti, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "kanpur dealer" ). It was believed that the opposite party-dealer had made purchases of deshi ghee from Moradabad and kanpur dealers like purchases made from dealer "g" and thereafter the goods were sent to Goa for sales. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the assessing authority fixed the turnover in respect of purchases of deshi ghee liable to tax under Section 3-D of "the Act" at Rs. 1,50,00,000 and that the inter-State sales liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act at Rs. 1,75,00,000 by assessment order dated March 29, 1996. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid assessment orders, the opposite party-dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Meerut. It was contended on behalf of the opposite party-dealer that no delivery of goods had been taken by the appellant in U. P. either from dealer "g" or from Kanpur dealer or Moradabad dealer. In fact, dealer "m" had acted as commission agent and the goods had been sent directly for sales by dealer "g", Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer. The inference against opposite party-dealer had been drawn only because of the statement made by employees of the dealer "g" at Meerut. In fact, dealer "m" had acted as commission agent and the goods had been sent directly for sales by dealer "g", Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer. The inference against opposite party-dealer had been drawn only because of the statement made by employees of the dealer "g" at Meerut. No inquiries were made from dealers at Moradabad or Kanpur. The statement of the employees of the dealer "g" at Meerut was believed without giving any opportunity of cross-examination when the same was specifically demanded. The appellant had nothing to do with Alok Kumar. No inquiries were made from him directly and he was also not produced for cross-examination even when demanded. There was no evidence of the goods being sent by the appellant in the course of inter-State sales either to Goa or to any other place outside U. P. Under these circumstances, both the assessment orders were liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) THE Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the opposite party-dealer that in so far as inter-State sales were concerned, the opposite party-dealer was not liable to tax at all inasmuch as the assessing authority himself had found that the appellant had made purchases of deshi ghee at Meerut and then despatched it to Goa for sales through his own agency. The purchaser and seller being same, i. e. , the opposite party-dealer at Meerut and dealer "m" at Goa, there could not be any inter-State sale on own showing by the assessing authority between them. There was no evidence whatsoever of goods being sent by the opposite party-dealer to any other place than Goa and, therefore, there was no material to hold that the opposite party-dealer had made any inter-State sales. The assessment order under the Central sales Tax Act was accordingly set aside. ( 9 ) AS regards the assessment order of U. P. , it was observed that the matter required further inquiries as to whether after the delivery of the goods taken by Alok Kumar, the goods have moved to Goa as a result of any prior agreement of sale or on account of sale on commission basis. ( 9 ) AS regards the assessment order of U. P. , it was observed that the matter required further inquiries as to whether after the delivery of the goods taken by Alok Kumar, the goods have moved to Goa as a result of any prior agreement of sale or on account of sale on commission basis. It was further stated that inquiries were necessary to find out as to how the respective assessing authorities of Kanpur and Moradabad dealers have treated these transactions and after assessment orders passed against these two dealers, if any, may be examined before fastening liability in respect of sales made by these two dealers. The case of U. P. , was accordingly remanded to the assessing authority. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of remand, the opposite party-dealer filed appeal before the Trade tax Tribunal. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. , also filed appeals against the orders of the deputy Commissioner (Appeals) declaring the opposite party-dealer as non-taxable under the central Sales Tax Act and the remand order in respect of U. P. ( 11 ) ALL the three appeals one by the opposite party-dealer and other two by the Commissioner of trade Tax were taken up together by learned Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party-dealer and dismissed the two appeals filed by the Commissioner, and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party-dealer was not liable to tax either under the U. P. or under the Central Sales Tax Act. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tribunal, the present two revision applications have been filed by the Commissioner, namely, against the order of the Tribunal declaring the opposite party-dealer not liable to tax either under the U. P. or the Central Act. ( 13 ) THE reasons given by the Tribunal for accepting the contentions of the opposite party-dealer are given as below : (i) The dealer "g" had entered into an agreement dated August 18, 1992 with the dealer "m" at goa whereby it was agreed that the goods manufactured by dealer "g" will be sold by dealer "m" at Goa on commission basis. On perusal of a photostat copy of the aforesaid agreement filed before the Tribunal, indicated that the goods were to be consigned directly by the dealer "g" to dealer "m" without there being any stipulation for delivery of goods at Meerut at the instance of the opposite party-dealer "g" to dealer "m" at Goa for sales. The agreement was not examined by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) himself but he remanded the matter to the assessing authority for the purpose of assessment under "the U. P. Act" whereas the Tribunal held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have examined this documents himself rather to remand the matter to the assessing authority for examination. (ii) The details of the sales made by the dealer "m" at Goa on commission basis were filed before the Tribunal along with photostat copies of six forms "f" obtained by dealer "g" from dealer "m" along with copies of sale parties indicating that the goods had been consigned directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m". These forms "f" prescribed under Section 6-A of the central Sales Tax Act read with rule 12 (5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover)Rules categorically indicated that the sales were made directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m" at goa inasmuch as the details of each consignment showing dealer "g" as consignor and dealer "m" as consignee were noted in these forms. These forms were submitted by the opposite party-dealer in support of his contention that the sales were made directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m". Since these forms had been sent by dealer "m" to dealer "g" the opposite party could only manage photostat copies of the same before the tribunal in support of his contention that the sales were made directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m". (iii) The copy of the assessment order of dealer "m" at Goa was filed before the assessing authority, the appellate authority as also before the Tribunal. A perusal of the assessment order clearly indicated that dealer "m" had sold deshi ghee and butter on behalf of dealer "g", Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer showing total sales of Rs. 1,67,98,680. The assessing authority at goa accepted that these sales had been made on behalf of the aforesaid dealers and were not liable to tax. A perusal of the assessment order clearly indicated that dealer "m" had sold deshi ghee and butter on behalf of dealer "g", Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer showing total sales of Rs. 1,67,98,680. The assessing authority at goa accepted that these sales had been made on behalf of the aforesaid dealers and were not liable to tax. (iv) The opposite party-dealer had demanded the right of cross-examiniation of the two employees of the dealer "g" before the assessing authority inasmuch as the inference against the opposite party-dealer was sought to be drawn on the basis of their statements only. The assessing authority, however, denied the right of cross-examination on the ground that the limitation for completing the assessment was about to expire. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, it was stressed on behalf of the opposite party-dealer that in case the right of cross-examination when demanded was not acceded to, the adverse material so obtained could not be taken into consideration. In support of this contention, several decisions were cited but the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) took no decision thereon. The Tribunal observed the denial of the right of cross-examination seriously violated the principles of natural justice and in such circumstances, the adverse material obtained on the basis of the statement of the two employees could not be relied upon. (v) The Tribunal also pointed out that the aforesaid agreement between dealer "g" and dealer "m" dated August 18, 1992 had been signed by the General Manager on behalf of dealer "g" and by Brij Bhushan on behalf of the opposite party-dealer. The employees of dealer "g" inferior to the General Manager had given a different version of business than stipulated in the agreement. In these circumstances, the Tribunal hold that the cross-examination of the lower authorities was all the more necessary. This right having been denied, no adverse inference could be drawn against the opposite party-dealer on this ground. (vi) The Tribunal found that the goods sent directly by dealer "g" in Meerut to dealer "m" in goa passed through the check-post established under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The documents accompanying these consignments including challans, were examined, signed and stamped by the check-post authorities in Rajasthan. These documents, including challans, were placed before the assessing authority as also before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). The documents accompanying these consignments including challans, were examined, signed and stamped by the check-post authorities in Rajasthan. These documents, including challans, were placed before the assessing authority as also before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). After examining these documents, the Tribunal found as a fact that the goods had been consigned directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m" in Goa, supporting the contention of the opposite party-dealer that delivery in respect of these goods were not taken by anybody at Meerut, much less the opposite party-dealer, (vii) The copy of the relevant portion of the stock register maintained by dealer "m" at Goa and signed during inquiries by officers of the department was produced by the opposite party-dealer before the assessing authority and the first appellate authority as also before the Tribunal. A perusal of the stock register clearly indicated that the despatches had been made directly by dealer "g" to dealer "m" at Goa. (viii) The assessing authority had believed that as in the case of dealer "g" at Meerut, goods were sent by Kanpur and Moradabad dealers also for sales on commission basis through dealer "m" at Goa. Since in the case of dealer "g" it was believed that deliveries were taken at Meerut and then goods were despatched to Goa, it was believed that in the case of Kanpur and moradabad dealers also, the opposite party-dealer had taken delivery and then goods were despatched to Goa, even though in respect of Kanpur and Moradabad dealers no inquiries whatsoever were made, indicating that the deliveries were taken by the opposite party-dealer either at Kanpur or at Moradabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in his order had observed that inasmuch as no inquires had been made in respect of Kanpur and Moradabad dealers, the matter may be remanded for making such inquiries as to how the assessing authority of these two dealers had treated these transactions. Before the Tribunal, however, copy of the assessment order passed in respect of Moradabad dealer and copy of the appellate order passed by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Kanpur dealer were filed which clearly indicated that the department had accepted the position that the Kanpur and Moradabad dealers had directly sent goods to dealer "m" at Goa on consignment basis. The Tribunal observed that in view of these orders passed by the departmental officers, the copies whereof were filed, there was no necessity of remanding the case to the assessing authority, as done by the Deputy commissioner (Appeals), and in view of the aforesaid orders passed by the departmental officers, it was apparently clear that the Kanpur and Moradabad dealers like dealer "g" at meerut had sent direct consignment from their business places to dealer "m" in Goa, and in respect of these transactions no liability could be fastened upon the opposite party-dealer. ( 14 ) ON a consideration of these circumstances and documents, the Tribunal after detailed discussion came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to justify the conclusion that deliveries were taken by the opposite party-dealer in U. P. , and thereafter the goods were transported by him to Goa. On the other hand, it clearly indicated that the goods had moved directly from the business premises of the dealer "g" at Meerut, Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer directly to Goa and the opposite party-dealer could not be held liable to tax in respect of these transactions. On the other hand, it clearly indicated that the goods had moved directly from the business premises of the dealer "g" at Meerut, Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer directly to Goa and the opposite party-dealer could not be held liable to tax in respect of these transactions. ( 15 ) THE Revenue has submitted the following question of law to be for adjudication and consideration are given below : "whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to concede the assessees mercantile contention of being non-assessable, notwithstanding the repugnant facts and incriminatory materials were sight on surveys in the inspection made by Trade Tax Officer (S. I. B.) on 10th/11th February, 1993?" ( 16 ) THE relevant provisions of Section 3-D (l) and (2) of "the Act" are given below : "3-D. Levy of trade tax on purchase or sale of certain goods.-- (1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), there shall be levied and paid, for each assessment year or part thereof, a tax on the turnover, to be determined in the prescribed manner,- (a) of first purchases of opium, at such rate not exceeding twenty-six per cent; (b) of first purchases of such other goods at such rate not exceeding (i) the maximum rate for the time being specified in Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), in respect of goods declared by Section 14 of that Act to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, and (ii) fifteen per cent in respect of other goods, and with effect from such date, as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify in relation to purchases made within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer (whether on his own account or on account of any one else), or through a dealer acting as a purchasing agent : provided that such tax on the turnover of first purchase of mentha herb shall be levied and paid at the rate of seven per cent or at such rate not exceeding fifteen per cent as the State government may, by notification, declare ; explanation I.--For determining the turnover liable to tax under this sub-section the amounts for which goods are purchased by one registered dealer from another registered dealer shall be deducted from his gross turnover only if the purchase in question is proved not to be the first purchase. Explanation II.--For the purposes of this sub-section, in relation to purchase of foodgrains in pursuance of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, including any purchase in excess of the levy share, the purchase first made by a dealer from the State government or its purchasing agent shall be the first purchase of such foodgrains and the tax shall accordingly be levied at that point on such dealer. (2) Where in respect of any goods notified under Sub-section (1), the purchaser whether on his own account, or on account of anyone else, is a person other than a registered dealer, there shall be levied and paid, for each assessment year or part thereof, a tax on the turnover, to be determined in the prescribed manner, of sale of such goods by the dealer who sells the goods or through whom the goods are sold to such purchaser, and the rate of tax shall be the same as notified under Sub-section (1 ). " ( 17 ) THE main grievance of the Revenue in the present case appears to be that the Tribunal considered some of the documents for accepting the contention of the opposite party-dealer which had not been produced before the lower authorities. This position is factually incorrect even though it is submitted that the Tribunal was competent to consider these documents even if submitted for the first time at the stage of hearing of the second appeal. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would clearly indicate that : (i) Copy of the assessment order passed by the assessing authority of Goa had been filed before the assessing authority, the first appellate authority as also before the Tribunal. The assessing authority himself mentions it in the assessment order. (ii) The documents including the challans signed and stamped by the check-post authorities of rajasthan Sales Tax Department were produced before the assessing authority, appellate authority as well also before the Tribunal. (iii) Copy of the relevant extracts of the stock register was produced before the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal, as found by the Tribunal in its order. (iv) Right of cross-examination was demanded by the opposite party-dealer before the assessing authority himself, but the same was denied. (iii) Copy of the relevant extracts of the stock register was produced before the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal, as found by the Tribunal in its order. (iv) Right of cross-examination was demanded by the opposite party-dealer before the assessing authority himself, but the same was denied. (v) The opposite party-dealer filed copies of the form F and copies of the assessment orders passed against the dealers of Kanpur and Moradabad for the first time before the Tribunal. These documents were filed in support of the main contention that the deliveries of goods had been made directly by the dealer "m" at Meerut, Kanpur dealer and Moradabad dealer directly from their places of business to Goa. The Tribunal had placed reliance on these documents after examining the same in the presence of the departmental representative and no objection in regard thereto was raised. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in accepting these documents filed before it for the first time for deciding the controversy as to whether the goods had moved directly through the aforesaid three dealers to Goa or had moved after the deliveries had been taken by the opposite party-dealer before its movement to Goa. ( 18 ) THE Tribunal is the last fact-finding authority and the findings of fact recorded by the tribunal can be interfered with only if they are not supported by any material on record or otherwise they are perverse. In the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the Tribunal has passed its findings on relevant material and the same can by no stretch of imagination be treated as perverse. ( 19 ) IN the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Triputi Tax Nit Ltd. 1986 UPTC 1049, this court took the view that while exercising revisionist jurisdiction this Court had to focus its attention on the question whether a question of law was involved in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had considered, in detail, each item of account which had been rejected by the authorities below. It had considered the explanation given by the assessee with regard to each one of them. All the findings regarding account books centred round appreciation of evidence on record, including explanation of the assessee and all the questions were primarily questions of fact, no interference was, therefore, warranted. It had considered the explanation given by the assessee with regard to each one of them. All the findings regarding account books centred round appreciation of evidence on record, including explanation of the assessee and all the questions were primarily questions of fact, no interference was, therefore, warranted. ( 20 ) IN the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kisan Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. 1988 UPTC 296, this court held "if (Tribunal) weighed all the pros and cons of the evidence led by both sides and then recorded its conclusion. The findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal are essentially findings of facts based on appreciation of evidence. It is settled law that a finding of fact recorded by the highest authority constituted under "the Act" for that purpose, ordinarily, should not be disturbed, even on the ground that another view was possible. " ( 21 ) IN the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Naresh Kumar and Virendra Kumar 1991 UPTC 610, this honourable Court again held that "it is settled that this Court does not interfere in these proceedings with the findings of fact so long such findings are supported by the material that exists on record, or the findings are otherwise not perverse". In the instant case, it is not possible to say that the view taken by the Tribunal was not a plausible one. In these circumstances, I see no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. ( 22 ) IN so far as Central sales tax case is concerned, even assuming without admitting that the delivery of the goods was taken by the opposite party-dealer in U. P. , particularly, in the case of dealer "g" at Meerut, as held by the assessing authority himself, there would be no liability of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the reason that the goods having been purchased by the dealer at Meerut were sold by himself at Goa. The purchaser and seller being same, there was no inter-State sale within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was for this reason that the first appellate authority also held that even assuming what the assessing authority had found was correct, there could be no inter-State sales by oneself to himself and, therefore, the order under the Central Sales Tax Act was liable to be set aside. It was for this reason that the first appellate authority also held that even assuming what the assessing authority had found was correct, there could be no inter-State sales by oneself to himself and, therefore, the order under the Central Sales Tax Act was liable to be set aside. The Tribunal, in addition to this, found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no material on record to believe that the opposite party-dealer had taken delivery of the goods at Meerut. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly justified in confirming the order of the first appellate authority that no inter-State sales were made by the opposite party-dealer. ( 23 ) IN so far as U. P. trade tax case is concerned, the Tribunal after examining the documents, facts and circumstances of the case, in detail, came to the conclusion that the opposite party-dealer had not taken delivery of the goods either at Meerut, Moradabad or Kanpur. In fact, the assessing authorities of Moradabad and Kanpur dealers had themselves accepted the contention that the goods were sent directly by them to dealer "m" at Goa. In regard to dealer "g" at Meerut, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that no delivery of goods had been taken by the opposite party-dealer at Meerut. This conclusion was specifically strengthened by the circumstances that the cross-examination of the persons on whose statement the adverse inference was drawn against the opposite party-dealer was not allowed in spite of the specific demand for the same. It may further be added that one Alok Kumar had been treated to be agent of the opposite party-dealer for taking delivery of the goods from the dealer "g" at Meerut but no inquiries whatsoever were made by the assessing authority from Alok Kumar nor was he produced for cross-examination even when it was so demanded. In these circumstances, no adverse material was there and no adverse inference could be drawn against the opposite party-dealer on the basis of the statements made by the employees of dealer "g" at Meerut. Apart from these statements, there was no other evidence to indicate even remotely that the opposite party-dealer had taken delivery of the goods at Meerut. The Tribunal, therefore, on appreciation of entire evidence rightly concluded that the liability of tax under the U. P. Trade Tax Act was not legally sustainable. Apart from these statements, there was no other evidence to indicate even remotely that the opposite party-dealer had taken delivery of the goods at Meerut. The Tribunal, therefore, on appreciation of entire evidence rightly concluded that the liability of tax under the U. P. Trade Tax Act was not legally sustainable. ( 24 ) THERE is yet another important aspect of the matter, that the assessment has been made by the assessing authority under U. P. , on the alleged first purchases of deshi ghee which was a commodity notified under Section 3-D of the Act. Under Section 3-D (2) of "the Act" the seller of the notified commodity, i. e. , deshi ghee was liable to pay tax on his sales made to a person other than a registered dealer. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D provide for levy of purchase tax in the hands of the first purchaser except as provided in Sub-section (2 ). In other words, the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3-D of "the Act" will prevail over the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D, i. e. , the first seller would be liable to tax if sales were made to unregistered dealer. Under Section 3-D (7) (b) of "the Act" the sale would be deemed to be a sale to an unregistered dealer unless the selling dealer proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished declaration forms or certificates obtained from the purchaser. These forms have been prescribed in the series of form III-C. It, therefore, transpires that unless these forms have been furnished by the purchaser to his seller, the seller would continue to be liable to tax. ( 25 ) THE Supreme Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Prabhudayal prem Narain [1988] 71 STC 1, that statutory forms are mandatory in nature, i. e. , if these forms are not submitted, the seller would continue to be liable to tax and not the first purchaser. ( 25 ) THE Supreme Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Prabhudayal prem Narain [1988] 71 STC 1, that statutory forms are mandatory in nature, i. e. , if these forms are not submitted, the seller would continue to be liable to tax and not the first purchaser. ( 26 ) THIS Court in its judgment dated August 13, 2002 passed in S. T. R. No. 25 of 2001, Naseer (Driver) v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. 2002 UPTC 1043 has observed that "this Court is not expected to take fresh appraisal of the evidences or fact findings recorded by the Tribunal, or submitted for consideration by applicant/ revisionist or the High Court shall formulate the question of law itself or allow any other question of law to be raised by the parties at the revision stage and the High Court shall after hearing the parties to revision, deal, adjudicate, or decide or answer such question of law even affirmatively or negatively. The trade tax revision could also not be dealt with and decided as an appeal by this Court as an appellate authority in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11 of "the Act" unless the law point or the question of law if any involved or it is shown that such finding of Tribunal is perverse based on no evidence, or no material on record or is otherwise arbitrary on the face of it which no court or authority could accept having regard to the prevailing facts and circumstances of a given case. The findings of learned Tribunal cannot be upset". ( 27 ) IN the facts of the present case, it is undisputed as shown by the assessment order itself, that no forms III-C were obtained by the opposite party-dealer from his assessing authority for submission to sellers. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 3-D (7) (b), the opposite party-dealer has to be treated as unregistered dealer and, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3-D of "the Act", the sales having been made by unregistered dealers, the selling dealer, i. e. , dealer "g" at Meerut was liable to tax and not the opposite party-dealer. In view of this legal position, the liability of tax was clearly on the selling dealer, i. e. , dealer "g" at meerut. In view of this legal position, the liability of tax was clearly on the selling dealer, i. e. , dealer "g" at meerut. The assessing authority, in this case, had examined this aspect of the matter but wrongly concluded that the opposite party-dealer would be liable to tax under Section 3-D (l) of "the Act" ignoring the provisions of Section 3-D (2) of "the Act". It is submitted that for this reason also, the assessment order for U. P. , was unsustainable even if it is accepted for the sake of argument only, though strongly denied, that delivery of the goods was taken by the opposite party-dealer from dealer "g" at Meerut in U. P. ( 28 ) IN view of the above observation in the present facts and circumstances the question of law raised in these revisions are dealt with and both the revisions are dismissed accordingly.