JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order passed in Second Appeal No. 224 of 1997 by the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1993-94. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The dealer - opposite party is carrying on the business of coal. The account books of the dealer were rejected by the assessing officer. The said order was modified partly in appeal by the first appellate authority. In further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that a sum of Rs. 34,93,302.03 which represents the freight amount for importing coal from the colliery to the coal depot shall not form of the turnover. The Tribunal took the view that since the freight amount has been charged separately in the bills, it will not form part of the turnover and it followed the decision of the apex court in the case of Vinod Coal Syndicate v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1989] 73 STC 317; [1988] UPTC 218 as also in the case of Sharma Coal Co., Azamgarh v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 881. It consequently reduced the average selling price of coal to Rs. 710 per metric ton. In the memo of revision, the following 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 was legally justified to exclude the amount of inward freight from the amount of taxable turnover of the assessee ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has examined the case in the light of observation of the honourable Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 340 of 1994 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sharma Coal Company Jalandhari, Azamgarh dated December 14, 1998) and has correctly held that the freight would not form the part of taxable turnover ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the selling rate of coal substantially without any proper basis in spite of the fact that it was fixed by the assessing officer based on material on record ?" All the above three questions are interwoven and interconnected. (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the selling rate of coal substantially without any proper basis in spite of the fact that it was fixed by the assessing officer based on material on record ?" All the above three questions are interwoven and interconnected. The main submission of the learned standing counsel is that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that freight shall not form part of the turnover. He submits that the dealer - opposite party purchased coal not as agent but as principal in his own account. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party supports the impugned order. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this court in Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sunil Kumar Coal Agent, Gorakhpur [2003] UPTC 1036, 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 (App); [2005] UPTC 1165 wherein it has been held that the dealer like the present dealer is not a coal agent but is a principal and as such, the inward freight shall form part of the turnover. The decision of the apex court in the case of Vinod Coal Syndicate [1989] 73 STC 317; [1988] UPTC 218 has been distinguished on the ground that in that case the dealer acted as agent which is not so where the purchases have been made by a dealer, as in the present case, in his own account. Similar view has been taken in other cases, such as (Trade Tax Revision No. 1073 of 2000) Commissioner Trade Tax v. Lakhichand Raj Kumar & Sons [2009] 24 VST 138, (T.T.R. No. 1253 of 1999), CIT v. Lakhichand Raj Kumar Sohratgarh and B.K. Enterprises, Sidharth Nagar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2010] 33 VST 240 (All) (decided today). For the reasons given therein, the order of the Tribunal is indefensible and the same is hereby set aside. The revision succeeds and is allowed and it is held that freight shall form part of the turnover. The order passed by the first appellate authority fixing selling rate of coal at Rs. 900 per metric ton is restored.