JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. - Present two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 7, 1998 relating to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") claimed to be an association of the brick kiln owners and was engaged in the business of buying and selling of coal. It was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts. The coal was imported against the declaration form XXXI as contemplated under section 28A of the Act from outside the State of U.P. Forms C were also issued relating to such purchases. Coal was imported through railway. Such coal was sold to the brick kiln owners for which bills were raised and tax was charged. Tax was also admitted and deposited. During the course of the assessment proceeding, dealer claimed that freight was directly paid by the brick kiln owners to the railway and, therefore, the freight could not be the part of the turnover. The assessing authority has not accepted the claim, inasmuch as it could not be substantiated by the evidence, freight was accordingly treated as part of the turnover and tax was assessed to tax. First appeals filed by the dealer were allowed and the tax levied on the freight was deleted. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal, which have been rejected by the impugned order. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R. R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer was not able to substantiate that the freight was paid by the brick kiln owners to the railways, but even assuming that the freight was paid by the brick kiln owners, it was paid on behalf of the present dealer inasmuch as the railway receipt was in the name of the dealer and at no stage, railway receipt was endorsed in favour of the brick kiln owners. He also submitted that freight was inward freight incurred before the sale of the coal and, therefore, it was part of the turnover. He also submitted that freight was inward freight incurred before the sale of the coal and, therefore, it was part of the turnover. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ramapati Tewari Jainath Tewari reported in [2005] UPTC 76 and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sharma Coal Co., Azamgarh reported in [2008] 16 VST 517 (All) [FB]; [2005] UPTC 1165. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the freight was paid by the brick kiln owners directly to the railway, therefore, the freight could not be part of the turnover. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. In the present case, dealer was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. Coal was imported against form XXXI from outside the State of U.P. and forms C were also issued to the selling party. Goods were imported through the railway and the railway receipts were in the name of the dealer. It was not the case of the dealer that the railway receipts were endorsed in favour of the purchasers and after the endorsement of the railway receipt, delivery of the goods was taken by them on the payment of freight charges. Dealer only contended that the freight was paid by the customer to the railway, though the dealer was not able to substantiate its claim that the freight was paid by the purchaser, but even assuming that it was paid by the customer since railway receipt was in the name of the dealer and liability to pay the freight was of the dealer, it is deemed to have been paid on behalf of the dealer by the purchaser. Freight incurred for transporting the goods from outside the State of U.P. to inside the State of U.P. was inward freight made prior to the sale and, thus, it would be a part of the turnover. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ramapati Tewari Jainath Tewari [2005] UPTC 76 and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sharma Coal Co., Azamgarh [2008] 16 VST 517 (All) [App.]; [2005] UPTC 1165. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ramapati Tewari Jainath Tewari [2005] UPTC 76 and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sharma Coal Co., Azamgarh [2008] 16 VST 517 (All) [App.]; [2005] UPTC 1165. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Appeal Nos. 865 of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 and 866 of 1992 for the assessment year 1988-89 filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax before the Tribunal stand allowed. The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11(8) of the Act.