JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - These 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 Tribunal dated January 31, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1994-95 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively. Heard learned Standing Counsel. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party/dealer. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the dealer in respect of the purchases made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal for Rs. 16,84,197.74 and has deleted the tax levied under section 3D(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. He submitted that the dealer had purchased and dispatched the same outside the State of U.P. Dealer had admitted liability of tax on the aforesaid amount treating the said purchases on his own account in the return, but during the assessment proceedings, dealer claimed that the purchases were made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal and after the purchases, the same were dispatched outside the State of U.P. at the destination of ex-U.P. principal. The assessing authority rejected the claim of the dealer on the ground that the dealer had not given details that when the goods were purchased and thereafter when dispatched, the purchases have also not been got verified from VIR, at the time of making purchases, it was not disclosed to the farmers that the purchases were being made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of the assessing authority, but the Tribunal has accepted the claim without examining the nature of transactions and without considering the various objections taken by the assessing authority for rejecting the claim of the dealer. He submitted that the Tribunal has only referred that a chart was submitted before the first appellate authority giving the details that on which date, goods were purchased and when they were dispatched. Details of the chart have not been referred. He submitted that the Tribunal has only referred that a chart was submitted before the first appellate authority giving the details that on which date, goods were purchased and when they were dispatched. Details of the chart have not been referred. He submitted that as per the decision of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti reported in [1992] 87 STC 196; [1992] UPTC 971, it has to be examined whether the purchases have been made on the basis of direction or instructions of ex-U.P. principal and after the purchases, they were dispatched outside the State of U.P. and both the purchases and dispatches were co-related to each other. He submitted that without examining the transactions in the light of law laid down by the apex court, the Tribunal has illegally accepted the plea of the dealer in respect of the claim of purchases for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. The apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti reported in [1992] 87 STC 196; [1992] UPTC 971, held the purchases to be in the course of inter-State, in case, where the purchases are made on the direction or instructions of ex-U.P. principal and the same are being dispatched outside the State of U.P. in shortest time and both the purchases and dispatches are co-related to each other. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that before accepting the claim of the dealer in respect of the purchases made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal, each and every transaction has not been examined. The Tribunal has also not considered the reasons given by the assessing authority for rejection of the claim. The assessment order also reveals that the transactions have not been examined in the light of law laid down by the apex court. In the circumstances, order of the Tribunal is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal has also not considered the reasons given by the assessing authority for rejection of the claim. The assessment order also reveals that the transactions have not been examined in the light of law laid down by the apex court. In the circumstances, order of the Tribunal is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. Since the assessing authority had also not examined each and every transaction relating to the purchases claimed to be made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal in the course of inter-State purchases, it would be appropriate that the matter may be remanded back to the assessing authority with the direction to examine each and every transaction in the light of law laid down by the apex court referred hereinabove. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass assessment order afresh in the light of observations made above.