JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated July 4, 1998 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur in Second Appeal No. 252 of 1997, relevant to the assessment year 1994-95. The dealer - opposite party is coal trader. It imports coal from outside the State of U.P. and sells it inside the State of U.P. The disclosed turnover of coal was not accepted by the assessing officer. The assessing officer also took the view that the amount of freight incurred by the dealer for importing the coal from colliery to coal depot shall form part of the turnover. The purchases were made by the dealer in his own account as principal and it distinguished the judgment 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. The said order has been modified by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that as the dealer has charged freight separately in the bills, the freight shall not form part of the turnover and it followed the decision of the apex court in the case of Vinod Coal Syndicate [1989] 73 STC 317; [1988] UPTC 218. In 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 honourable Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 340 of 1994 Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 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 ?" Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. (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 ?" Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 (All) (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, (T.T.R. No. 1073 of 2000) Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Lakhichand Raj Kumar and Sons [2009] 24 VST 138 (All), (T.T.R. No. 1253 of 1999) Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Lakhichand Raj Kumar Sohratgarh, (T.T.R. No. 1176 of 2000), B.K. Enterprises, Sidharth Nagar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2010] 33 VST 240 (All) and (T.T.R. No. 49 of 1999), Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Coal Dealer, Sohratgarh, Sidharth Nagar [2010] 33 VST 246 (All) (decided on August 18, 2008). In view of the above discussions, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the first appellate authority is restored.