JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - Heard Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department. In these two revisions, assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 are involved. Raising a short controversy, the present revisions have been filed. The applicant claimed that he is carrying on the business in trading agency in food grain and raab. The applicant's claim that certain purchases made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal have not been accepted by any of the authorities. Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that purchases were not made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal, on its true and correct understanding of the transaction entered into by the applicant, is nothing but purchases made in the course of inter-State purchases. The facts, which are not in dispute, may be noted in this regard. According to the own showing of the applicant, the buyers from outside the State of U.P. used to come to the applicant and the applicant made the purchases as per the specifications and requirements of the buyers who were present on the spot. The applicant indisputably charged purchase tax on such purchases. According to the applicant, goods were despatched to such purchasers. On these facts, the question arises whether the purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases, coupled with the fact that the applicant - dealer issued IIIC(1) form on such purchases. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if form IIIC(1) was issued by the applicant or he has charged purchase tax from such buyers, it would not make any difference in view of the Division Bench decision of this court in Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2003] 135 STC 524; [2003] UPTC 525 followed in Agarwal Trading Company, Bulandshahr v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2008] 11 VST 201; [2004] UPTC 914. In contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is basically a finding of fact and the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. In contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is basically a finding of fact and the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that if a customer has come on the spot and the applicant has facilitated the purchases, it will be local purchases and that if the goods were moved outside the State of U.P. subsequently, it will be governed by the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 depending upon the facts of each case. According to him, at any rate, it will not be purchases made in the course of inter-State purchases. In this regard, a reference to section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act was made. I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal [2003] 135 STC 524; [2003] UPTC 525 is the judgment of the apex court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196; [1992] UPTC 971. The apex court while accepting the case of the dealer with regard to purchases made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal, by way of abundant caution, vide para 17, has explained its ratio by observing that if the purchases were made and the goods were ordered to be moved outside State of U.P. as and when the ex-U.P. principal desired, such purchases will not be purchases made in the course of inter-State purchases. Coming to the facts of the case, which are not in dispute, it is difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant for the simple reason that the applicant has charged purchase tax from the customers and has also issued form IIIC(1). Even if it has been held that issuance of form IIIC(1) is not a decisive factor to hold that the transaction in question is not in the course of inter-State purchases but looking to the fact that the applicant has charged the purchase tax, is certainly a strong factor against the applicant. The Tribunal has considered the explanation given by the applicant in response to show-cause notice as also the bills issued by the applicant and has demonstrated that the applicant has charged purchase tax from its customers. The Tribunal has considered the explanation given by the applicant in response to show-cause notice as also the bills issued by the applicant and has demonstrated that the applicant has charged purchase tax from its customers. The assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority have found that from the record it is established that the purchases were made by the applicant in his own name and not in the name of ex-U.P. principal. The first appellate authority has rightly drawn the conclusion that since the purchases are entered in the name of the applicant in his account books, these purchases were (local) State purchases. In view of the above discussion, both the revisions are hereby dismissed but no order as to costs.