S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS Tax Revision case is filed by Hyderabad Engineering industries Limited, Hyderabad under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act ) questioning the correctness of the order dated 30. 3. 1990 passed in T. A. No. 712 of 1987 on the file of the Sales Tax appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad. This Tax Revision Case relates to the assessment year 1981-82. According to the petitioner, the following questions are said to arise in this revision. 1. Whether, having regard to the documents and material on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that orders were being placed by UIL on hei ? ( 2 ) WHETHER, having regard to the documents and materials on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no provision in the contract between HEI and UIL for market survey and forecasting of requirements or that the plea of forecast was raised only after the commercial Tax Officer sought to assess the sales to UIL as inter-State sales ? ( 3 ) WHETHER, having regard to the documents and materials on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that goods of specific sizes and specific varieties were manufactured by HEI in the quantities specified and were sent to UIL ? ( 4 ) WHETHER, the Tribunal is right in holding that the sales made to UIL should be treated as inter-state sales and liable to be taxed as such in the hands of HEI? ( 5 ) WHETHER, having regard to the documents and materials on record, the Tribunal was right in law and had jurisdiction in directing the assessing authority to decide whether sales made to parties other than UIL were branch transfers or inter-State sales, which were not taxed by the CTO and which were not subject-matter of appeal? although the petitioner has raised the above questions in this revision, according to us, the primary question which would answer all the above questions is whether the disputed turnover relates to branch transfers or inter-state sales? 2 The material facts of the case in brief are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act and the company s registered office is situate at door No. 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, new Delhi. 2 The material facts of the case in brief are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act and the company s registered office is situate at door No. 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, new Delhi. The petitioner-company has different manufacturing units and trading units throughout India and it has 22 godowns spread over in different parts of the country. The petitioner company manufactures different kinds/types of fans at Hyderabad. The goods, viz. , electric fans, manufactured by the petitioner which are standard products and are in demand and have to be distributed and supplied all over India. There was an agreement dated 1. 5. 1979 between the petitioner and Usha Sales Limited (subsequently known as usha International limited, and hereinafter referred to as UIL ). According to the petitioner, under the said agreement, the main function of UIL was to organise sale and distribution of the products of the petitioner and to arrange for sales promotion measures of the products and to provide after sale service and such other services as might be required in the interest of sales of the said products. The agreement also contemplated that UIL would purchase the said products as an independent principal and maintain adequate stocks and sell the same as such. Before the Commercial Tax Officer, on behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that there are no inter state sales and there is no binding contract between it and the UIL and the UIL purchase whatever products they want from the branches of the petitioner and there is no movement of goods in pursuance of a contract entered with them, as the movement of goods is in the routine course to their own branches, and therefore, the movement cannot be attributed to any order placed by UIL or an agreement entered into with UIL. It was also contended that the communication from the UIL indicating the quantities required at various places is only a forecast by them and not an order for supply and, therefore, the transfers to the branches cannot be treated as supplies made to UIL through the branch offices of the petitioner in pursuance of the firm order placed by UIL before the movement of the goods. The Assessing authority, after verification of records and hearing the petitioner-dealer, came to a conclusion that the agreement between the petitioner and the UIL and in pursuance of the orders placed by UIL, the goods were moved to various places in the country and delivered to them from the branches of the petitioner and, therefore, the said turnover could not be treated as branch transfers, but they have to be treated as inter-state sales. The Assessing Authority did not accept the above contentions of the petitioner and by his order dated 28. 2. 1986 held that the goods sold to UIL out of the goods dispatched by petitioner from its factory at Hyderabad to its various godowns were inter-State sales. Being aggrieved* by the said order of the assessing authority dated 28. 2. 1986, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), hyderabad-I Division, Hyderabad being appeal No. 19 of 1986-87. The Appellate deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) by his order dated 7. 1. 1987 dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 7. 1. 1987 preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal ) being Appeal No 712 of 1987. The Tribunal also concurring with the view of the assessing authority and that of the appellate authority, dismissed the appeal by order dated 30. 3. 1990. Hence, this Tax Revision Case by the petitioner- dealer. 3. We have heard Sri P. Srinivas reddy, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Special government Pleader for Taxes on behalf of the department. 4. Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, contended that the opinion of the authorities below and the Tribunal that the goods sold to UIL should be treated as inter-State sales and, therefore, are liable to be taxed as such in the hands of the petitioner cannot be sustained both on facts and in terms of law. Sri Srinivas Reddy also contended that the factual findings recorded by the authorities below cannot be sustained because those findings are recorded without properly taking into consideration all relevant materials and evidence on record. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in kelvinator of India Limited v. State of haryana, (1973) 32 STC 629, Tata engineering and Locomotive Company ltd. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in kelvinator of India Limited v. State of haryana, (1973) 32 STC 629, Tata engineering and Locomotive Company ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of commercial Taxes, (1970) 26 STC 354 (SC), Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of orissa, (1976) 37 STC 207 (SC), Sahani steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial tax Officer, (1985) 60 STC 301 (SC), south India Viscose v. State of Tamil nadu, (1981) 48 STC 232 (SC), and English electric Company of India Ltd. v. The deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (1976) 38 STC 475 (SC ). 5. On the other hand, the learned special Government Pleader for Taxes, while supporting the impugned order, contended that the assessing authority conducted a detailed enquiry and considered all relevant documents and recorded his finding and those findings recorded by the assessing authority are essentially findings on facts. The findings recorded by the assessing authority have been affirmed both by the appellate authority and the Tribunal and that under the Act, the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and the findings recorded by it cannot be interfered with under revision under Section 22 of the act unless in a given case the findings are found to be perverse and based on no evidence at all. The learned Counsel also contended that though the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kelivnator s case (supra), that judgment has no application to the facts of this case. The learned Special government contended that the evidence collected by the assessing authority clearly go to show that the transactions between the petitioner and UIL are inter-State sales not intra-state sales. By way of reply, sri P. Srinivas Reddy, contended that the question whether transactions are inter- state sales or intra-State sales is a mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, it is permissible for this Court to decide whether the findings recorded by the authorities below on such a mixed question of fact and law is justified and legal. ( 6 ) THE petitioner placing reliance on the two agreements entered into between it and UIL contended that the transactions between the two are not inter-State sales. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to refer to the relevant recitals of the agreements entered into between the parties. There are two agreements between the petitioner and UIL. ( 6 ) THE petitioner placing reliance on the two agreements entered into between it and UIL contended that the transactions between the two are not inter-State sales. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to refer to the relevant recitals of the agreements entered into between the parties. There are two agreements between the petitioner and UIL. The petitioner, as said above, manufactures varieties of fans. They are as follow: ( 21 ) IN English Electric Company of india Ltd. case (supra), the appellant- company, having its registered office at calcutta and branches at Bombay, Delhi, madras and Lucknow, had its main factory at Madras where the appellant manufactured certain goods. A Bombay buyer wrote to the Bombay branch of the appellant asking for lowest quotation of the goods. The Bombay branch wrote to the madras branch giving all the specifications and stating that the goods were for the bombay buyer. The Madras branch in reply referred to the order of the Bombay buyer, gave the required particulars and mentioned that the price was for Madras. The Bombay branch thereafter wrote to the Bombay buyer reproducing all the particulars, conditions of sale and mode of dispatch as stated by the Madras branch and further stated that the goods would be manufactured at the Madras branch factory. The Bombay buyer placed an order with the Bombay branch accepting all the terms and conditions. The Bombay branch placed an indent order addressed to the Madras branch giving all the particulars, the buyer s name, order number and date. On receipt of an invoice from the Madras branch, the Bombay branch wrote to the Bombay buyer that some of the goods against the order were ready for despatch and asked for details of dispatch instructions. The Bombay branch thereafter wrote to the Madras branch giving despatch instructions and stating that the railway receipts and other documents should be sent to them for disposal. The Madras branch despatched the goods to Bombay by goods train and gave intimation to the bombay branch. The goods were delivered to the Bombay buyer through clearing agents and the insurance charges were collected from the Bombay buyer. The Madras branch despatched the goods to Bombay by goods train and gave intimation to the bombay branch. The goods were delivered to the Bombay buyer through clearing agents and the insurance charges were collected from the Bombay buyer. The appellant contended that there was no inter-State sale and that the sale was at Bombay inasmuch as the Bombay buyer placed the firm order at Bombay, payment was made at Bombay, railway receipt was in the name of the Bombay branch, the goods were delivered at Bombay and there was no privity of contract between the Madras branch and the Bombay buyer. The Madras high Court held that the sale was an inter- state sale falling under Section 3 (a) of the Central Act. On appeal to the Supreme court, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was one entity and it carried on business at different branches. Branches are not independent and separate entities. They are different agencies. The contract of sale was between the appellant and the bombay buyer. When a branch of a company forwards a buyer s order to the principal factory of the company and instructs them to despatch the goods direct to the buyer and the goods are sent to the buyer under those instructions it would not be a sale between the factory and its branch. The steps taken from the beginning to the end by the Bombay branch in co-ordination with the Madras factory showed that the bombay branch was merely acting as the intermediary between the Madras factory and the buyer and that it was the Madras factory which pursuant to the covenant in the contract of sale caused the movement of goods from Madras to Bombay, The inter-State movement of the goods from madras to Bombay was the result of the contract of sale and the fact that the contract emanated from correspondence which passed between the Bombay branch and the company could not make any difference. The sale was therefore liable to be taxed under Section 3 (a) of the Central act. ( 22 ) THE above pronouncement of the Supreme Court also fully supports the claim of the department. In the instant case, the movement of the goods to the branches was in pursuance of a contracts of sale. The sale was therefore liable to be taxed under Section 3 (a) of the Central act. ( 22 ) THE above pronouncement of the Supreme Court also fully supports the claim of the department. In the instant case, the movement of the goods to the branches was in pursuance of a contracts of sale. It is found as a fact by all the three authorities below, that the goods were always moved to their destination in pursuance of the requests of UIL and under intimation to it. The Tribunal on perusal of all relevant documents and materials placed before it has concluded thus:"we may also further state that on seeing r. 100b document in the book of the appellant, it is clear that it is the same godown that is the godown for both the appellant as well as Usha Sales Ltd. , clearly indicating that the sister concerns are having the present method in an attempt to evade Central Sales Tax and it is not a case of branch transfers as being argued and on the other hand it is a case of transfer of goods and movement of goods in pursuance of a contract entered into between the two sister concerns, one a manufacturing unit and another the sole selling agent. " ( 23 ) IN terms of the second agreement entered into between the parties to which reference is made above, the goods were to be sold directly to the parties in cast UIL procured orders from the Companies or corporations for bulk orders. Therefore, merely because certain deliveries from the branches were sold to such bulk consumers, it cannot be said that all the supplies made to the branches were branch transfers. The evidence on record would disclose that the transfer of goods by the petitioner to the branches were to comply with the firm orders placed by UIL in pursuance of the agreement entered into between them and also for the purpose of sales on bulk orders procured by UIL as per the second agreement. ( 24 ) IT is true as contended by Sri srinivas Reddy that the question whether a sale is an inter-State sale or not is a mixed question of fact and law as held in Bharat heavy Electrical Limited v. Union of india, (1996) 102 STC 373 (SC ). ( 24 ) IT is true as contended by Sri srinivas Reddy that the question whether a sale is an inter-State sale or not is a mixed question of fact and law as held in Bharat heavy Electrical Limited v. Union of india, (1996) 102 STC 373 (SC ). At the same time, it needs to be emphasized as held by the Apex Court in the above judgment that if a question arises whether a sale is an inter-State sale or not, it has to be answered with reference to and on the basis of Section 3 and Section 3 of the Central sales Tax Act alone and that the provisions of Section 4, or for that matter the provisions of Section 5 are not relevant on the said question. This position is well settled by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar, (1960) 11 STC 655 (SC), Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Assistant commissioner of Sales Tax, (1976) 37 STC 489 (SC), Union of India v. K. G. Khosla and Co. Limited, (1979) 43 STC 457 (SC ). Similarly, where the question arises as to in which State is the tax leviable, one must look to, and apply the test in Section 9 (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as no other provision is relevant on that question. In manganese Ore (India) Ltd. s case (supra) having regard to the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that so far as section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned, there is no distinction between unascertained and future goods and goods which are already in existence, if at the time when the sale takes place these goods have come into actual physical existence. So opining, the Apex Court held that all the incidents of an inter-State sale were present in that case and therefore the sales were covered by Section 3 (a) of the central Sales Tax Act. So opining, the Apex Court held that all the incidents of an inter-State sale were present in that case and therefore the sales were covered by Section 3 (a) of the central Sales Tax Act. In Pandiya vishwanath and Sons v. Commissioner of sales Tax, (1989) 72 STC 224 (All), the allahabad High Court held that the hypothetical situation that since the goods were not dispatched by rail or otherwise in the name of the buyer and therefore there was a possibility of being directed to any other person need not be considered to determine the question whether, the movement of the goods was a result of a covenant or incident of a contract of sale. The facts that the assessee agreed to sell the items specified in the agreement at the agreed rates, that he caused them to be prepared according to specification and offered the delivery thereof unmistakably lead to the conclusion that the movement of the goods resulted from a covenant or was incident of contract of sale. The Court proceeded to hold that it is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement, but what is necessary is whether the movement of the goods was occasioned by a covenant or was incident of contract of sale. The above judgment of the allahabad High Court, with which we respectfully concur, also fully supports the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, In south India Viscose Ltd. case (supra) the apex Court held that if there is a conceivable link between a contract of sale and the movement of goods from one State to another in order to discharge the obligation under the contract of sale, the interposition of an agent of the seller who may temporarily intercept the movement will not alter the inter-State character of the sale. This decision again fortifies the case of the department. In Indian Oil Corporation ltd v. Union of India, (1981) 47 STC 1 (SC), the Apex Court held that a sale shall be an inter-State sale under Section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This decision again fortifies the case of the department. In Indian Oil Corporation ltd v. Union of India, (1981) 47 STC 1 (SC), the Apex Court held that a sale shall be an inter-State sale under Section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956, if there is a contract of sale preceding the movement of goods from one State to another and the movement is the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or is an incident of that contract; in order that a sale may be regarded as an inter-State sale it is immaterial whether the property in the goods passes in one State or another. ( 25 ) IN the premise of the established facts, the position in law noticed above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the movements of the goods to the branches from Hyderabad were in pursuance of and incidental to the pre-existing orders received by the petitioner from the UIL. Therefore, the transactions are clearly inter-State sales and not branch transfers as claimed by the assessee. ( 26 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, the view of the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in tribunal Appeal No. 712 of 1987 dated 30. 3. 1990 affirming the concurrent finding of the Commercial Tax Officer, Company circle II, Hyderabad and the Appellate deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), hyderabad-I Division, Hyderabad is upheld and the revision is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.