JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. - This trade tax revision has been filed by M/s. Jai Shree Trading Company, Shyamganj, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, Bench - II Bareilly dated February 3, 1995. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1994-95. The dealer claims to be a commission agent. The dispute relates to levy of tax on the purchase of raab galawat and raab salawat made by the dealer for and on behalf of its ex-U.P. principals. The dealer filed its returns in which it showed the total transaction of Rs. 1,56,935.89 to be purchases made from local dealers for and on behalf of its ex-U.P. principals. In support of the same the dealer produced documents at the time of assessment according to which on the date on which it had received orders from the ex-U.P. principals, it made the local purchases and thereafter despatched the goods so purchased on the same day. The details with regard to local purchases and despatches have been submitted. The assessing authority did not accept the aforementioned transactions to be purchases made for and on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals, instead it held that these purchases were made by the dealer for his own account and has, therefore, raised the demand for tax on the purchases vide assessment order dated November 17, 1988. The dealer filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) by order dated October 11, 1999. The second appeal filed by the dealer has also been dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated February 3, 1995. Aggrieved by the same present revision has been filed. The following questions of law have been raised by the dealer : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the levy of tax on the purchases of raab galawat and raab salawat at Rs. 1,56,935.89 made on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals ? (ii) Whether the view of the Tribunal is based on relevant consideration and on correct facts ? 1,56,935.89 made on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals ? (ii) Whether the view of the Tribunal is based on relevant consideration and on correct facts ? (iii) Whether the view of the Tribunal that after making the purchases the entry was made on its own account, treating the purchases as own purchases while the fact is to the contrary, namely, that after making the purchase in Satti Bahi the entry was made in the account of ex-U.P. purchaser and in the purchase bahi and after making the purchases, the goods were despatched to the ex-U.P. principal outside the State of U.P. ?" I have heard Sri Pawan Shree Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the dealer and learned Standing Counsel representing the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Along with the revision the dealer has filed photocopy of the documents showing the local purchases and the despatch of the same to the ex-U.P. principals situate outside the State of U.P. The submission on behalf of the dealer is that the authorities have disbelieved the contention of the dealer only on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that the dealer had prior purchase orders or, in other words, existing purchase orders on the basis of which the local purchases were made and the despatches were effected. According to the learned counsel for the dealer, right from the stage of assessment, as is apparent from the assessment order also, the claim of the dealer was that these purchases had been made either upon instructions received on telephone or in some cases where the representative of the ex-U.P. principals had come in person. These purchases made had been despatched on the same day for which records were maintained and produced before the assessing authority. It is further submitted that none of the authorities has recorded any finding that the transaction of local purchases and their despatch to the ex-U.P. principals were separable and distinct transactions. In support he has relied upon the following two decisions : (1) Agarwal Trading Company, Dhankaur, Bulandshahar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. [2008] 11 VST 201 (All); [2004] 40 STR 672. (2) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); [1992] UPTC 971. In support he has relied upon the following two decisions : (1) Agarwal Trading Company, Dhankaur, Bulandshahar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. [2008] 11 VST 201 (All); [2004] 40 STR 672. (2) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); [1992] UPTC 971. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that all the authorities have concurrently recorded finding that the dealer had failed to establish by any evidence that it had prior purchase orders and such a finding being a finding of fact concurrently recorded no interference is called for in this revision. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that even from the record the dealer failed to establish that it was an agent, as provided under section 182 of the Contract Act, 1972 and in the absence of any material to support the claim of the dealer, the findings recorded by the authorities are just and valid and do not warrant any interference. Having given my careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, two questions arise in this case. Firstly, as to whether oral orders given on telephone or through representative would be taken to be prior purchase orders and secondly, if the documents produced by the dealer before the assessing authority showed by conduct that the local purchases made of specific quantities of goods and such specific quantifies of goods despatched on the same day were for the ex-U.P. principals, was it open to the assessing authority or the appellate authority and the Tribunal not to consider those documents and their effect. In other words the question is whether the dealer had or had not established that the local purchases made were for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principals by conduct. With regard to the first question referred to above, it is not an issue that oral orders by ex-U.P. principals received on telephone or in case where the representative of ex-U.P. principals had personally come and requested the dealer to make such purchases for them could be accepted as prior purchase orders. With regard to the first question referred to above, it is not an issue that oral orders by ex-U.P. principals received on telephone or in case where the representative of ex-U.P. principals had personally come and requested the dealer to make such purchases for them could be accepted as prior purchase orders. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that even if such oral orders on telephone or through representative had been received the dealer ought to have maintained a record of the same and should have produced such record where he had noted such orders. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the issue that it was not essential that written orders should have been available with the dealer prior to the making of the local purchases. In this regard it would be relevant to mention that from the perusal of the evidence filed by the dealer during the assessment proceedings which has also been placed before this court, what is noticed is that on a particular date there has been a single order and the purchase orders are not in great numbers everyday. Further there has been a gap of two or three days or may be 10 days where orders have been placed pursuant to which the dealer made local purchases and despatched them on the same day. In such a situation it cannot be said that it was necessary for the dealer to have maintained record book for noting such orders inasmuch as the purchase orders placed on the date had been finally executed by the dealer on the same day, as the local purchases were made and despatched then and there on the same day. Had it been the case of dozen or hundred of orders on one day, in that event it could become necessary to be recorded and to have maintained a record for such number of oral purchase orders and executing them with smoothness and perfection. However, as number of the purchase orders is not so high; rather it is a maximum of two in a day and that too at a gap of number of days, in the opinion of the court it was not necessary to reduce them in writing. The reasoning thus given by the authorities and the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. The reasoning thus given by the authorities and the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. From the facts and circumstances of the case rejection of the dealer's contention cannot be said to be justified. In this regard reference may be had to the following decisions relied upon by the dealer : (1) Agarwal Trading Company, Dhankaur, Bulandshahar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. [2008] 11 VST 201 (All); [2004] 40 STR 672. (2) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); [1992] UPTC 971. The dealer by means of the documents has established that the local purchases made and the despatches were inseparable as the quantity despatched, the time taken in the despatch and further only commission was charged clearly showed that they were made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. Thus, there does arise question of law warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and demand of tax raised for the transaction amounting to Rs. 1,56,935.89 treating them to be local purchases on its own account is accordingly set aside. Any amount of tax deposited in excess shall be refunded to the dealer in accordance with law.