JUDGMENT BILAL NAZKI, J. The appellant is the registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act, 1956"). The appellant took registration with effect from February 21, 1989 showing its place of business at Sirsilla Road, Kamareddy town, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant has its factory at Solapur in the State of Maharashtra for manufacture of beedis. It is the case of the appellant that during the course of business, it participated in auctions conducted by the forest department, Government of Andhra Pradesh for disposal of beedi leaves collected in the forest. As per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade in Abnus Leaves) Rules, 1970 (for short, "the Rules"), the beedi leaves can be transported only under a valid permit, as per the pre-determined route to the destination. Any deviation in transportation, contrary to the transport permit, is not permissible. It is further the case of the appellant that it purchased beedi leaves under various auction bids and the quantity so purchased was directly transported by it from the forest depots in the Andhra Pradesh to Solapur of Maharashtra State. It is further submitted that various depots, where the appellant had purchased beedi leaves, were quite away from the appellant's place of business at Kamareddy in Andhra Pradesh. Appellant's office at Kamareddy is established only to make purchases of beedi leaves and arrange their transport to the factory at Solapur. Therefore, beedi leaves at no point of time are taken to Kamareddy, but are directly dispatched to the factory in Maharashtra. In the year 1989-90, the appellant, according to it, under a mistake, reported taxable turnover of Rs. 1.07 crores and paid tax on the purchase of beedi leaves, which had been directly dispatched from the forest depots to its factory at Solapur, in accordance with the transport permit. The appellant claimed that as transactions were inter-State, they were not liable for levy of Andhra Pradesh general sales tax under item No. 18 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Levy was on purchase point and as such there was no question of appellant having collected tax. During the course of assessment, however, the appellant claimed exemption before the Commercial Tax Officer. Levy was on purchase point and as such there was no question of appellant having collected tax. During the course of assessment, however, the appellant claimed exemption before the Commercial Tax Officer. He disallowed exemption holding that the appellant was the last buyer within the State and as such, the taxable event had taken place in the State. Similarly for the year 1992-93, the Commercial Tax Officer assessed the appellant on turnover of Rs. 1.01 crores by assessment order dated July 31, 1983. In this assessment year also, the appellant had reported turnover of Rs. 33.78 lakhs for certain months and paid tax of Rs. 2.60 lakhs. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196, the appellant claimed exemption on purchase of beedi leaves, which were directly transported from forest depot to its factory at Solapur. The exemption claimed by the appellant was Rs. 67.57 lakhs for the year 1992-93. The Commercial Tax Officer issued provisional assessment notice for assessment on entire purchase of Rs. 1.01 crores. The appellant filed objections and relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196. Appellant also produced factual evidence of direct transportation of beedi leaves from depots of the forest department to the factory. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected the objections holding that the purchases are at appellant's office at Kamareddy. He held that the appellant purchased beedi leaves in Andhra Pradesh and consigned to Solapur of Maharashtra State. Against both the assessment orders, the appellant filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad, who allowed the appeals on October 19, 1993 holding that the transactions were inter-State purchases and not liable to the Andhra Pradesh general sales tax. The appellate authority, however, after setting aside the assessment orders, remanded the case back to the assessment officer to reassess in terms of the directions given by him. According to the appellant, the findings of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner were categorical that the purchases were inter-State in nature and, therefore, the Commercial Tax Officer had to pass a consequential order and allow refund to the appellant to the extent of taxes paid in both the years. According to the appellant, the findings of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner were categorical that the purchases were inter-State in nature and, therefore, the Commercial Tax Officer had to pass a consequential order and allow refund to the appellant to the extent of taxes paid in both the years. When the case was pending, the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer issued show cause notice dated November 14, 1994 proposing to revise the order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner and restoring the order of the Commercial Tax Officer for both the assessment years 1989-90 and 1992-93. In the meantime, the final assessment for 1992-93 was made by the Commercial Tax Officer on March 30, 1996. He did not follow the order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the appellant filed appeal against this order before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad, on April 22, 1996. As such, it is claimed that the notice by the Commissioner proposing revision had become unnecessary. In response to the revision notice issued by the respondent, the appellant filed its objections dated October 16, 1994 and December 16, 1995, oral arguments were also advanced and written submissions were filed on May 27, 1995. The respondent, without, however, appreciating various contentions of the appellant, confirmed the revision and restored the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. In the light of these facts, the appellant has raised various questions of law and the questions which are relevant for the purposes of deciding the special appeal are : Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 and Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 90 STC 1, were applicable to the facts of the case ? The case of the appellant is that at no point of time, the goods had gone to its depot or office at Kamareddy in Andhra Pradesh. The office at Kamareddy was only established in order to make purchases and facilitate the movement of goods from forest depots to its factory at Solapur in Maharashtra State. This plea is factual and answer to this plea would be relevant for the purposes of considering the scope of ambit of judgments referred to above. The office at Kamareddy was only established in order to make purchases and facilitate the movement of goods from forest depots to its factory at Solapur in Maharashtra State. This plea is factual and answer to this plea would be relevant for the purposes of considering the scope of ambit of judgments referred to above. While disposing of the matter, the Commissioner, in the revision, considered the following points : (i) Whether M/s. Desai Beedi Co., Kamareddy, is a branch or agency; (ii) Whether the transactions, in question, can be classified as purchases by an agent on behalf of non-resident principal; and (iii) Whether the transactions, in question, are liable to tax in the State of A.P. under the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957 ? The Commissioner noted that the appellant has registered itself as a partnership firm with principal place of business at 3-1-160, Sirsilla Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district. He also noted that in reply to the notice of show cause, the assessee, i.e., the appellant, had stated through its authorised representative, "...... The purchases were made within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The assessee then transported the entire quantity .... to their branch at Solapur in Maharashtra State". To the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kamareddy on July 29, 1993 for the assessment year 1992-93, the appellant had replied, "... the beedi leaves were purchased by the dealer during the course of inter-State purchase and they were transported to their own head office at Solapur". The Commissioner found that the assessee had tried to treat the transactions within the State at one time, and yet another time it claimed that the transactions were inter-State purchases and these replies were contrary to each other. In one of the replies, the appellant had stated that the office at Solapur of Maharashtra State was its branch office, while in another it is stated that the office at Solapur of Maharashtra State was "head office". On facts, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the office of the assessee at Kamareddy of Andhra Pradesh was not an agency, but a branch office. He also did not believe that the transactions effected by the assessee were agency transactions on behalf of a non-resident principal. On facts, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the office of the assessee at Kamareddy of Andhra Pradesh was not an agency, but a branch office. He also did not believe that the transactions effected by the assessee were agency transactions on behalf of a non-resident principal. After analysing the records and also the Rules, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the delivery had taken place at various godowns in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The goods were moved from the forest godowns in the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the instance of purchaser, after taking the delivery. According to him, since the delivery had been taken in Andhra Pradesh, it was immaterial whether there was any further movement of goods or not, particularly for the seller. As far as the seller is concerned, the transaction was complete at the godowns when the delivery was taken. The Commissioner came to the following conclusions : that the assessee is not an agent acting on behalf of a non-resident principal, but is a branch office. The delivery took place at the forest godowns in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The goods moved from the forest godowns, at the instance and application of the purchaser, specifying the mode of transport, route of transport and the destination to which the goods have to be transported. Thus, it can be concluded that the transaction took place in the State of Andhra Pradesh between the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation and the assessee. Now in the light of these findings of facts by the Commissioner, the law laid down by the Supreme Court will have to be appreciated. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand, Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196, similar questions were before the Supreme Court. After considering the whole law on the subject, as was available on the date when the judgment was pronounced, the Supreme Court, relying on the earlier judgments, was of the view that what was important was that the movement of goods and the sale should be inseparably connected. After considering the whole law on the subject, as was available on the date when the judgment was pronounced, the Supreme Court, relying on the earlier judgments, was of the view that what was important was that the movement of goods and the sale should be inseparably connected. While dealing with the Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 207 (SC), the court noted the ratio of the judgment in the following terms : If the goods moved from one State to another State in pursuance of the agreement of sale and sale is completed in the other State, it is an inter-State sale. The Supreme Court also held : "Sri Sehgal is equally not right in saying that movement of goods from the State of U.P. to other State(s) is immaterial and that the U.P. Legislature is competent to tax each and every purchase that takes place within that State. Ordinarily, it is so, but 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. Situation could have been different if the respondent-dealer had purchased the goods on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals in the first instance and thereafter in pursuance of subsequent instructions despatched the goods. In such an event the instructions to despatch the goods are independent of the instructions to purchase. There is a break between the purchase and despatch of goods. It would not be an inter-State purchase. An out-State principal may first instruct his commission agent within the State of U.P. to purchase the goods on his behalf and to await his further instructions. Depending upon the market conditions and other circumstances, the ex-State principal may instruct his agent in the State either to sell the goods within the State or to despatch the goods beyond the State. If such were the case, Sri Sehgal would have been right in saying that the State of U.P. was competent to tax the purchase by the respondent-dealer. If such were the case, Sri Sehgal would have been right in saying that the State of U.P. was competent to tax the purchase by the respondent-dealer. But that is not the case here on the facts found by the appropriate authorities." So in terms of this judgment, it is clear that if the goods moved from one State to another State, in pursuance of an agreement of sale and the sale is completed in the other State, it is an inter-State sale. It is also clear from the judgment that if there is a stipulation expressed or implied in the agreement of sale regarding movement of goods from one State to another, and if goods, in fact, moved from one State to another, then it would be "inter-State sale". The facts in Co-operative Sugars case [1993] 90 STC 1 (SC) were that the assessee was a co-operative sugar factory having sugar factory at Chittur of Kerala State. Sufficient sugarcane was not available within the State. The assessee and the Government of Kerala approached the State of Tamil Nadu for supply of sugarcane to the factory. In pursuance of understanding arrived at between them, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Government order dated July 20, 1963. By virtue of this order, the assessee was permitted to draw sugarcane from Coimbatore and Pollachi taluks in Tamil Nadu subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions in the Government order was "the Co-operative Sugars Ltd., Chittur should remit the sales tax on the cane supplies made from areas in Madras State. The basis for purposes of calculation will be taken as 3 per cent of the purchase price of cane for a recovery of 9.8 per cent (Rs. 1.62 per maund)". In pursuance of this arrangement, the assessee opened its offices at Coimbatore and Pollachi. The sugarcane inspectors from these offices used to visit the fields, inspect the sugarcane and also take delivery of the sugarcane from the farmers. They also arranged the transport of sugarcane to the factory under the cover of delivery notes in form XX. In form XX, the appellant itself was shown both as the seller and the buyer. The sugarcane inspectors from these offices used to visit the fields, inspect the sugarcane and also take delivery of the sugarcane from the farmers. They also arranged the transport of sugarcane to the factory under the cover of delivery notes in form XX. In form XX, the appellant itself was shown both as the seller and the buyer. On the basis of these facts, the sales tax authorities of Tamil Nadu held that the sale of sugarcane has taken place within the State of Tamil Nadu and accordingly levied the purchase tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee disputed the levy contending that it was an inter-State sale within the meaning of clause (a) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, not exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The matter ultimately reached the High Court of Madras. The High Court concluded that inasmuch as the sale took place within the State of Tamil Nadu and the property, i.e., the goods passed to the assessee in Tamil Nadu, the mere fact of transport of the goods later from Tamil Nadu to Kerala, as its own goods makes no difference. The High Court held, that movement of goods was not a stipulation of or an incident of the contract of sale. This view of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. After consideration of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196, the Supreme Court in Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd.'s case [1993] 90 STC 1 came to the conclusion that in order to constitute an inter-State sale what was important was whether movement of goods and sale are inseparably connected. It held : "If we examine the facts of this case in the light of the above observations, it would be clear that the purchases made by the appellant are inter-State purchases. The appellant was permitted to purchase sugarcane in Coimbatore and Pollachi taluks only with a view to and exclusively for the purpose of transporting to its factory in Kerala. Whatever was purchased was transported to the appellant's factory in Kerala. The appellant was permitted to purchase sugarcane in Coimbatore and Pollachi taluks only with a view to and exclusively for the purpose of transporting to its factory in Kerala. Whatever was purchased was transported to the appellant's factory in Kerala. It must, therefore, be held that this is a case where the movement of goods was occasioned by sale by the farmers or by the purchase by the appellant, whichever way one looks at it. The movement of the sugarcane from Tamil Nadu to Kerala is the incident of, and is inextricably connected with the sale/purchase. The purchase and transport are but parts of one transaction. They cannot be dissociated in this case. There is no break between the purchase and the movement of the goods to another State, viz., Kerala. It is immaterial, in such a case whether the sale/purchase takes place within Tamil Nadu or within Kerala. So long as the movement of goods is an incident of the sale/purchase it amounts to an inter-State sale/purchase. It is not also necessary that the contract of sale must expressly provide for movement of goods. It is sufficient if the movement of goods is implicit in the sale. In our opinion, the High Court was not right (in holding) in the facts and circumstances held established by it in this case that the sale and movement of goods are unconnected and dissociated transactions. They are not." The respondent, however relied on the judgment of a division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab [1994] 94 STC 555. This was a case where section 4-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was under challenge and the question before the court was whether it was the legislative competence to enact section 4-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Section 4-B levy tax on purchase of certain goods and held it to be intra vires holding that the State Legislature has competence to enact the provisions, as tax was not imposed on consignment/transfer of goods by the petitioner-Corporation to its own branches but on the purchase of the goods. This judgment, in our view, is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Because the only question in the present appeal is "whether the sale had been completed in the State of Andhra Pradesh". This judgment, in our view, is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Because the only question in the present appeal is "whether the sale had been completed in the State of Andhra Pradesh". Now coming back to the facts of the case, it was the admitted position that when the goods were purchased by the assessee-appellant from the forest department and when the goods were lifted from the forest depots, it was known to the seller, i.e., forest department that the goods had to go to Solapur in Maharashtra State. There was no allegation at any point of time that these goods were retained in the State of Andhra Pradesh for any period. Rule 313 of the Forest Rules provided that delivery of goods shall be made from the depot after the necessary payment had been made for the Abnus leaves. It also provided that the purchaser should remove stocks from the godowns within thirty (30) days of the issue of delivery order. Rule 4(2)(a) provided that after delivery and purchase of the leaves, goods could not be transported out of the depots, unless a permit was given by the permit officer. The permit officer is authorised to make inquiries, as he may deem it necessary and if satisfied he may issue transport permit. The transport permit will be issued in terms of form C under rule 4(1) of the Rules. The purchaser is bound to disclose among other things the destiny to which the Abnus leaves are to be transported. He has also to specify the route by which the leaves are to be transported and the mode of transport. So before taking delivery and before starting the movement of the goods, buyer has to disclose destination, route of transport and mode of transport. Unless these things are disclosed, there would not be any movement permit and if there is no movement permit, the goods cannot be transported. Therefore, in the present case, it was clear that goods have been purchased for being sent immediately to the factory at Solapur of Maharashtra State. Therefore, it can be presumed that it was implied in the agreement of purchase itself that the goods had to be transported and utilised in the State of Maharashtra. One of the transport permits taken as specimen from Book No. 5 bearing No. 100351 dated September 22, 1989 is on record. Column Nos. Therefore, it can be presumed that it was implied in the agreement of purchase itself that the goods had to be transported and utilised in the State of Maharashtra. One of the transport permits taken as specimen from Book No. 5 bearing No. 100351 dated September 22, 1989 is on record. Column Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the form reads as under : ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Name and address of the consignee M/s. Desai Beedi Com., outside the State of Andhra New Solapur, Maharashtra Pradesh. State. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. From Adilabad to Solapur ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Route of transport. Adilabad, Nirmal, Bhainsa, Dharmabad, Osmanabad, Tuljapur to Solapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, in our view, the Commissioner was not right in revising the order of remand/assessment. We, therefore, allow the appeal and hold that the appellant was not exigible to tax for the year 1989-90 under the Act, as it was an inter-State sale. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.