JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow has filed the present revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgment and order dated June 30, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur in Second Appeal No. 535 of 1991 relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. The dealer - opposite party was carrying on the business of foodgrains. For the assessment year in question 1973-74 it disclosed its taxable turnover inter-State sales at Rs. nil but was assessed at Rs. 2,85,443.39 by the assessing officer by the order dated March 31, 1990 which was confirmed by the first appellate authority in Appeal No. 796 of 1990 on May 9, 1991. But the Tribunal by the order under revision has allowed the second appeal filed by the dealer - opposite party and held that the transaction in question does not amount to inter-State sale. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The contention of the dealer - opposite party before the authorities below was that it sold the goods to the local party at Gorakhpur and the delivery of the goods was also effected. However, on the instructions of such purchasers it sent the goods outside the State of U.P. through railway after getting the railway receipts prepared in his own name as such, the railway receipts were transferred to such purchasers by making an endorsement thereon. The assessing authority found that on the admitted case of the dealer - opposite party, the railway receipts were prepared "as self" and the railway receipts were endorsed during the course of movement of goods from one State to another and as such the transaction in question is covered by section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said finding was affirmed by the first appellate authority who also got summoned the files of such purchasers. It was inquired as to how the delivery of goods was given by the dealer - opposite party to such purchasers who did not possess the licence and could not get the railway receipts in their names. The said finding was affirmed by the first appellate authority who also got summoned the files of such purchasers. It was inquired as to how the delivery of goods was given by the dealer - opposite party to such purchasers who did not possess the licence and could not get the railway receipts in their names. The first appellate authority reached to the conclusion that the railway receipts were got prepared in the name of the dealer - opposite party and that the title thus could not have been transferred to such purchasers before endorsement of the railway receipts in their names. In para 4 of the order the first appellate authority reached to a definite conclusion that the question of delivery of goods to such purchasers does not arise as the title of goods stood transferred only after endorsement on the railway receipts in favour of such purchasers. It, therefore, concluded that the transaction in question is an inter-State transaction. The Tribunal without setting aside the aforestated finding has drawn an inference that the sale in question is not inter-State sales but intra-State sale. In the memo of revision the State has raised the following question of law : "Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the impugned transactions are not inter-State sales despite the fact that the honourable High Court had held otherwise in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore [1976] 38 STC 551; [1976] UPTC 571 ?" The only point thus mooted in the present revision is whether the transactions in question are inter-State sales or intra-State sales. Chapter II of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for sales or purchase of goods which are known as inter-State sales or purchase of goods. The said section, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below : "3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Chapter II of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for sales or purchase of goods which are known as inter-State sales or purchase of goods. The said section, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below : "3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase, - (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another." The aforesaid section has been subject-matter of interpretation of the apex court from time to time. It in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. S. R. Sarkar [1960] 11 STC 655 (SC); AIR 1961 SC 65 has observed that clauses (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are exclusive with each other. If a case falls in clause (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, it will not fall in clause (a) of the section. It has been held in para 16 that where the property in goods has passed before movement has commenced, the sale will evidently not fall within clause (b) nor will the sale in which the property in the goods passes after the movement from one State to another has ceased to be covered by the clause. Accordingly, a sale effected by transfer of documents of title after the commencement of the movement and before its conclusion as defined by the two termini set out in Explanation (1) and no other sale will be regarded as an inter-State sale under section 3(b). Applying the said ratio, on the facts of the present case, it is admitted at least by the dealer - opposite party that it got the railway receipts in its name and transferred the same by making endorsement after movement of goods from the State of U.P. to outside of the State. On the relevant facts one and the only one conclusion is possible that the transaction in question is nothing but an inter-State transaction and is covered by clause (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. On the relevant facts one and the only one conclusion is possible that the transaction in question is nothing but an inter-State transaction and is covered by clause (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A Division Bench of this court has dealt with exactly the same controversy in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore [1976] 38 STC 551 (All); [1976] UPTC 571. The facts of the case are noted in paragraph 3 of the judgment which are reproduced below : "The modus operandi in which the transactions were effected was this. The dealer at the instance of the parties in U.P. used to send foodgrains outside U.P. The railway receipts were made up in the name of the dealer. Thereafter the railway receipts were endorsed in favour of the U.P. buyers and the price received in U.P. These transactions were commonly known in the business circle as bilti cut transactions. The Judge (Revisions) has held that all the ingredients of sale had taken place inside U.P. and, therefore, the same would have been taxed at one per cent and not at seven per cent." In the above case it was held that such transactions amount to inter-State sale. The facts of the present case are parallel to the facts of the case of Mewalal Kewal Kishore [1976] 38 STC 551 (All); [1976] UPTC 571, therefore, in this case also the transactions in question amount to inter-State sales, as was held by the assessing officer and the first appellate authority. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal is not legally correct. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon other Division Bench decisions, namely, (1) Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., Kanpur v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 27 STC 61 (All) and (2) Bhoorey Khan Glass Bangle Factory v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1974] 34 STC 332 (All) in support of his contention that the transaction in question is intra-State sale. A close scrutiny of the facts and the controversy involved in the cases would show that they were decided on different factual matrix and are distinguishable on facts. A close scrutiny of the facts and the controversy involved in the cases would show that they were decided on different factual matrix and are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. [1971] 27 STC 61 (All) under the terms of the contact it was provided that the goods sold shall be deemed to have been sold ex-mill delivery. In this case the assessee sold the goods to a Kanpur party within the State and the Kanpur party entered into transaction with a party outside the State but ultimately the delivery was effected by the assessee. It was held that there were two transactions. One by the mill to the Kanpur party who received the delivery or deemed to have received the delivery and the second being a sale between Kanpur party and the outside party of State. It was clearly stipulated between the parties that under the contract of sale, the Kanpur party shall be deemed to have received the delivery of goods at Kanpur. On the basis of the special terms and conditions stipulated between the mill and the Kanpur party, the delivery of goods was assumed in favour of Kanpur party within the State. The said case was found to be not covered either by clause (a) or (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, so far as the manufacturer (mill) is concerned. In this very case the High Court has referred the decision of the apex court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited [1960] 11 STC 655; AIR 1961 SC 65 and also in Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 STC 446 wherein it was pointed out - "a sale could be said in the course of inter-State trade only if two conditions concur (i) a sale of goods, and (ii) a transport of those goods from one State to another under the contract of sale. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, there can be no sale in the course of inter-State trade". Unless both these conditions are satisfied, there can be no sale in the course of inter-State trade". After quoting the above paragraph, the High Court on the basis of the contract entered into between the parties observed that the contract specifically contemplated that the goods if sold ex-mill delivery, it cannot be said that if the goods subsequently crossed the border of the State of U.P. to neighbouring State it was a result of covenant or an incident of contract of sale. In the case on hand, the dealer got the railway receipts in his name and endorsed in the name of Gorakhpur party after receiving the consideration and thus the sale has been effected by transfer of document of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. It is covered by clause (b) of section 3 of the Act. The above case has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case and is distinguishable as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel. Similarly, on the facts of the case of Bhoorey Khan Glass Bangle Factory [1974] 34 STC 332 (All) is distinguishable and has hardly any application to the facts of the present case. This was also a case relating to clause (a) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee was claiming that the sales effected by it were inter-State sales but he failed to lead any evidence about the precise nature of the contract which had been entered into between it and the purchaser. It was found as a fact that since the assessee effected the delivery of goods at Firozabad in the State of U.P., the subsequent movement of the goods outside the State of U.P. will not make transaction in question an inter-State sale. The controversy involved therein was entirely different and, therefore, the above case does not advance the case of the dealer - opposite party any further and is, therefore, distinguishable. Lastly, the learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party referred the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vijay Power Generator (P.) Ltd., Bijnor [1995] UPTC 539 which lays down that whether any transaction is inter-State sale or not is basically a question of fact. In that case the learned standing counsel could not point out any error of law in arriving on that finding, the revision was dismissed. In that case the learned standing counsel could not point out any error of law in arriving on that finding, the revision was dismissed. This case does not lay down any ratio to be followed. The observation made therein should be understood in the context of the facts of that case only. The question as on given facts that transaction is an inter-State sale or intra-State sale is definitely a question of law which is to be decided keeping in view the parameters of inter-State sale as enumerated under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In my considered view, the controversy involved in the present case is governed by clause (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and is fully covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore [1976] 38 STC 551; [1976] UPTC 571. Viewed as above, the question raised by the Revenue is answered in its favour by holding that the transaction in question is inter-State sale, against the dealer - opposite party. The revision is allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000.