JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - Raising a short controversy, the present revision is at the instance of the Department against the order dated January 21, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 524 of 1993 connected with Second Appeal No. 371 of 1993, both relating to the assessment year 1991-92 (Central). The dealer - opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sanitary goods. It has a factory at Noida. For the assessment year 1991-92 it disclosed net turnover of Rs. 2,99,444.75 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority, after examination of the account books, was not satisfied with the claims as set out by the dealer - opposite party with regard to the stock transfer. It rejected a part of the claim of stock transfer on the basis of material as collected by the Department in the survey dated August 5, 1991. In that survey, the surveying officer found that the cash book was posted up to July 31, 1991 and ledger up to July 6, 1991. Certain account books were seized. The assessment order dated August 31, 1992 was challenged before the first appellate authority in First Appeal No. 1659 of 1992 who by order dated March 1, 1993 allowed the appeal in part by accepting the claim in respect of certain transactions as stock transfer. In respect of remaining transactions, the first appellate authority found that they were inter-State sales, consequently levy of Central sales tax was upheld. The Tribunal by the order under revision has accepted the claim of the dealer - opposite party with regard to the stock transfer in toto. In the memo of revision the following two questions of law have been sought to be raised : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to accept the alleged stock transfers and exempt them from tax, though it is evident from the account books seized in the survey dated August 5, 1991 that the assessee has made direct sales from its Noida office to outside U.P. which are clearly Central sales ? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal has properly appreciated the material available on record ?" The learned standing counsel for the Department submits that on the basis of the material collected in the survey dated August 5, 1991, the goods covered by forwarding notes No. 101, 106, 127, 129 and under challan No. 58, dated June 22, 1991, challan No. 16, dated April 24, 1991, challan No. 17, dated April 24, 1991 and challan No. 26, dated May 18, 1991, were moved outside the State of U.P. in pursuance of prior contract of sale in between the dealer - opposite party and the purchasing dealer and, therefore, the transactions covered by the aforesaid documents are nothing but "Central sales". The value of such transactions has been determined by the first appellate authority to the tune of Rs. 2,35,093.08. The Tribunal, without looking into the facts that the goods were moved in pursuance of prior contract to outside the State of U.P., was swayed away by irrelevant consideration that the goods reached at the head office at Delhi first and thereafter they were despatched to the party concerned and the bill was raised by the head office and Central sales tax was collected by the head office. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the goods were moved from Noida to Delhi not in pursuance of the prior contract but from factory to the head office and thereafter the head office despatched those goods to the party concerned and charged the tax accordingly. He submits that movement of goods from Noida to Delhi was nothing but stock transfer from factory to the head office and as such, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the inter-State sales tax on such movement of goods. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the assessment order would show that in the survey dated August 5, 1991 certain documents were seized which also include a note book titled as "forwarding note". It is marked as "Sanket No. 4". From the said seized forwarding note book the assessing authority found that in the forwarding notes No. 101, dated April 28, 1991, 106 dated May 19, 1991, 127 dated June 21, 1991 and 129 dated June 22, 1991, etc., names of the purchasers are mentioned. It is marked as "Sanket No. 4". From the said seized forwarding note book the assessing authority found that in the forwarding notes No. 101, dated April 28, 1991, 106 dated May 19, 1991, 127 dated June 21, 1991 and 129 dated June 22, 1991, etc., names of the purchasers are mentioned. In the forwarding note No. 101 name of purchasing dealer has been mentioned as S/s. Lakhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. The sale of goods has ultimately been shown from head office to the said party concerned. An inference has been drawn that movement of the goods covered under forwarding note was in pursuance of prior agreement of sale. Similarly, in the forwarding note No. 106, name of S/s. Lakhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay finds place therein, it was scored out and in its place address of branch office has been written. The goods ultimately reached to S/s. Lakhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay though the bill was drawn at Delhi office. More or less similar position is in respect of other forwarding notes, being Nos. 127 and 129. Before the Tribunal it was argued by the dealer - opposite party that the goods mentioned in the forwarding notes were sent to Delhi head office first. The entry of goods is recorded in the stock register and thereafter the goods were moved to the party concerned. In this connection reliance was place on transfer challan No. 18, dated April 27, 1991 in respect of forwarding note No. 101. The Tribunal was very much influenced by the fact that the goods reached to the ultimate customer though the name and address of the purchasing dealer find place in the forwarding note, it is a case of stock transfer from Noida to Delhi and as such it set aside the levy of Central sales tax. The same argument was reiterated before me by the learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party. What is "Central sales" is defined in section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. It provides that 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 only question survives in the present revision is whether the transaction in question falls in clause (a) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act or not. In order to be an inter-State sale, there must be movement of goods in connection with sale. Two things must co-exist : (1) sale of goods; and (2) movement of goods from one State to another. In Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1973] 32 STC 629; AIR 1973 SC 2526 the apex court has held that a sale in the course of inter-State trade has three essentials : (1) there must be sale; (2) goods must be actually moved from one place to another; and (3) sale and movement of goods must be part of same transaction. Applying the ratio of the above case to the facts of the present case, the sale of goods to the Bombay party or other party outside the State of U.P. is admitted. The very fact that in the forwarding note, the name and address of the purchasing dealer find place is a very strong circumstance to indicate that the goods were moved in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. There was an agreement in between the dealer - opposite party and the party outside the State of U.P. and the said agreement occasioned the movement of goods from the State of U.P. to another State such as Bombay, may be via Delhi, as the dealer contends. Merely because in the account books an attempt was made that the goods were received by the head office at Delhi and thereafter they were despatched to the party outside State of U.P. will not change the nature and character of the transaction. It will not absolve the dealer - opposite party from the liability to pay the inter-State sales tax. Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act the burden of proof in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale lies on the dealer, noticeably, the goods were manufactured at dealer - opposite party's factory at Noida. Appropriation of goods took place at Noida and was earmarked for S/s. Lakhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay as is evident from the forwarding note No. 101. It was valued at Rs. 34,500. Appropriation of goods took place at Noida and was earmarked for S/s. Lakhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay as is evident from the forwarding note No. 101. It was valued at Rs. 34,500. The same goods, according to the dealer - opposite party, were sent to S/s. Lakhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay through transfer challan No. 18, dated April 27, 1991 for Rs. 34,176. Before the Tribunal transfer challan and sale bill of Delhi and payment of octroi receipts were produced. The Tribunal on the basis of these documents wrongly concluded that it is a case of stock transfer. It failed to take into account a very vital factor, i.e., the said goods, as admitted to the dealer, were sold to the same party whose name finds place in the forwarding note. It shows that the goods were earmarked at Noida for the purchasing dealer, before it could reach to Delhi. This shows that the movement of goods from factory to Bombay was in pursuance of prior contract of sale and it is inter-State sale as defined under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer - opposite party could not produce any cogent evidence to show as to how name of ultimate purchasing dealer could find place in the forwarding note issued by the factory at Noida. The other transactions are of similar nature. In view of the above discussions, it is difficult to agree with the Tribunal that it was a case of stock transfer. It is held that it was a case of stock transfer from Noida to Delhi and ultimate sale from Delhi to purchasing dealer. The Tribunal was thus not justified in interfering with the order of the first appellate authority rejecting the claim of stock transfer in respect of Rs. 2,35,093.08. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party laid much emphasis on the fact that the first appellate authority has accepted similar kind of transactions as stock transfer and there was absolutely no justification in not accepting the claim in respect of the forwarding notes, referred to above. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the claim of stock transfer in toto. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the claim of stock transfer in toto. A bare perusal of the order of the first appellate authority would show that in respect of other stock transfer, nothing adverse was found either in the survey or otherwise that the goods were transferred from Noida to Delhi in pursuance of prior agreement of sale. This is a distinguishing feature which has been rightly noted by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority was fully conscious and has found that in respect of forwarding notes Nos. 101, 106, 107, 129 (Sanket No. 4), challan No. 58 (Sanket No. 8) and challan Nos. 16, 17 and 26 (Sanket No. 9), the movement of goods was made in pursuance of prior agreement of sale from the State of U.P. to the outside State of U.P. It has been found that with a view to avoid liability of inter-State sales tax, an attempt was made by manipulating the entries in the account books to show that it was a stock transfer. As regards other seized challans, no adverse material was found after thorough examination and, therefore, in the absence of any adverse material, the claim of the dealer - opposite party with regard to the stock transfer was rightly accepted. Viewed as above, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The revision is on terra firma and it is held that the transactions in question are inter-State sales and not stock transfer. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored back. No order as to costs.