JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated March 28, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 263 of 1992. Raising a short controversy present revision has been filed for the assessment year 1986-87. The applicant, a commission agent deals in the food grains, tilhan, etc. Its books of account have been accepted. The only controversy involved in the present case is regarding the taxability of the turnover of food grains amounting to Rs. 16,75,196.81 alleged to have purchased on behalf of ex U.P. principal. The authorities below have negatived the claim of the applicant that these purchases were made on behalf of ex U.P. principal and were inter-State purchase and hence were exempt under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The ground for not granting exemption as claimed by the dealer - applicant is, that these purchases were not made, on the facts of the present case, on behalf of ex U.P. principal. The question which fall for determination, therefore, is as to whether these purchases on the facts of the present case can be said to have been made on behalf of ex U.P. principal or not. The authorities below have found that the applicant has failed to produce copy of the orders received from ex U.P. principal. In the statement as noted in the assessment order, the dealer - applicant admitted that delivery of the food grains in question was effected to the principal in U.P. A show cause notice was given vide annexure 2 to the revision. Para 3 of the reply to the show cause notice is relevant which reads as under : "(3) That actually speaking no physical delivery of goods was made in U.P. The purchaser (ex U.P. principal) purchased grains in his own presence and the assessee helped in dispatch of grains and his records showed all such details. Para 3 of the reply to the show cause notice is relevant which reads as under : "(3) That actually speaking no physical delivery of goods was made in U.P. The purchaser (ex U.P. principal) purchased grains in his own presence and the assessee helped in dispatch of grains and his records showed all such details. Hence it could not be said that they were first purchases in the hands of the assessee." The assessing authority has found that the goods were delivered in State of U.P. and admittedly form XXX-C/1 was issued by it and accepted its liability being the first purchaser in State of U.P. It rejected the explanation of the dealer that the goods were not delivered in the State of U.P. This part of the assessment order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax by his order dated January 31, 1992. He was of the opinion that since the form XXX-C/1 was issued and the goods were delivered in U.P., it cannot be said that purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases. The Tribunal has also confirmed the aforesaid finding. It has also placed reliance on ground No. 4 of the memo of appeal, which reads as under : "Because it is not necessary to produce the purchase order because the purchasers of ex U.P. came themselves and purchased grains through our commission agency in their presence and transported the grains themselves. No doubt the appellant had to assist them in procuring the truck, etc." Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed strong reliance on the following cases : (1) Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408 (All); [1979] UPTC 809; (2) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); [1992] UPTC 971; (3) Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2004] 135 STC 524 (All); [2003] UPTC 525. Elaborating arguments it was submitted that this court in a number of decisions have held that production of written order is not sine qua non to claim that the purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases and mere issuance of form XXX-C/1 will not change the nature of transaction. Elaborating arguments it was submitted that this court in a number of decisions have held that production of written order is not sine qua non to claim that the purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases and mere issuance of form XXX-C/1 will not change the nature of transaction. Can it be said that in the present case that goods were purchased on behalf of ex U.P. principal as the principal was present at the time of purchases in U.P. ? The further finding is that delivery of the goods was effected in the State of U.P. and the goods were dispatched immediately out of U.P. The applicant as per his own version helped the principal in dispatch of the goods. On these facts the applicability of principles of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments arise. Where there is unconditional contract for sale to specific goods in delivery able state, the property in goods passes to the buyer when contract is made and it is immaterial whether time or payment of the price at the time of delivery of the goods or both is postponed. This was so held in respect of auction sale if the bid is accepted. The goods passes. (Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board [1980] 46 STC 164 (SC); AIR 1980 SC 1468 ). Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 has held as follows : "(1) According to clause (a) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, an inter-State sale or purchase is one, which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. In other words, the movement of goods from one State to another must be the necessary incident - the necessary consequence - of sale or purchase. (2) It is immaterial whether a completed sale precedes the movement of goods or follows the movement of goods, or for that matter, takes place while the goods are in transit. What is important is that the movement of goods and the sale must be inseparably connected. (3) Where a sale or purchase, though effected within the State of U.P. occasions 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. (3) Where a sale or purchase, though effected within the State of U.P. occasions 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." This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed in subsequent case of Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 90 STC 1. In that case the facts were similar to the facts involved in the present case. The appellant of that case was permitted to purchase sugarcane in Coimbatore and Pollachi Talukas in Tamil Nadu only with a view to exclusively for the purposes of transporting to its factory in Kerala. All the purchases were transported to Kerala from Tamil Nadu. It was held that this is a case where movement of goods was occasioned by the sale by the farmers or by the purchase by the appellant, whichever way one looked at it. The movement of the sugarcane from Tamil Nadu to Kerala was an incident of and was inextricably connected with, the sale/purchase. The purchase and transport were parts of one transaction and could not be disassociated. There was no break between the purchase and the movement of the goods to another State, i.e., Kerala. It is immaterial, in such a case, whether the sale/purchase took place within Tamil Nadu or within Kerala. So long as the movement of the goods was an incident of the sale/purchase it amounted to an inter-State sale/purchase. Looking to the facts of the present case it is clear that the goods were dispatched outside State of U.P. It is not the finding of the Tribunal that purchase and transport are not part of one transaction. The Tribunal has negatived the claim of the dealer - applicant on the short ground that ex U.P. principal took delivery of the goods, though denied by the applicant, in the State of U.P., therefore it was intra-State sale. This finding of the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited [1993] 90 STC 1, is legally not sound. It has been held by Supreme Court that it is not necessary that contract of sale must expressly provide, for movement of the goods. This finding of the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited [1993] 90 STC 1, is legally not sound. It has been held by Supreme Court that it is not necessary that contract of sale must expressly provide, for movement of the goods. It is sufficient if movement of goods is implicit in the sale. In my view the Tribunal was not right in holding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that sale and movement of goods are unconnected and disassociated transaction. In view of the above I find sufficient force in the revision. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the applicant is not liable to pay any tax in the State of U.P. on the turnover of food grains amounting to Rs. 16,75,196.81 as it was purchases in the course of inter-State purchases. The revision is allowed.