JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 2. The present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2001 for the assessment year 1996-97. 3. The dispute relates to the transaction of Rs. 4,11,550/- under the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the “Dealer”) was carrying on the business of food grains, oil seed, pulses etc. Admittedly, the goods for Rs. 4,550/- was despatched outside the State of U.P. The dealer claimed that the goods, which have been despatched outside the State of U.P. related to the purchases made on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and after the purchases the goods were despatched. The assessing authority treated the despatches as inter-State sales and rejected the claim of the dealer that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal on the ground that the dealer was not able to produce any orders of the Ex-U.P. Principal to show that the goods were purchased in pursuance of the order and there was no co-relation between the purchases and despatches of the goods. The first appeal filed by the dealer was dismissed. The dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of the dealer that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal on the ground that the orders were received on telephone and the name of the farmers, 6R, 9R, Mandi fees, palladari were mentioned. However, the Tribunal has accepted that the co-relation between the purchases and the despatches of the goods are not established but has observed that from this fact alone it cannot be inferred that the goods have been despatched outside the State of U.P. as a result of sale in pursuance of any order. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly, the goods were despatched by the dealer outside the State of U.P. under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the goods were not moved outside the State of U.P., in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly, the goods were despatched by the dealer outside the State of U.P. under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the goods were not moved outside the State of U.P., in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. Neither any evidence nor any other documents have been adduced in this regard except the claim that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. He submitted that under the U.P. assessment, the dealer himself had admitted the purchases relating to the despatch of the goods on own account and admitted the liability of tax. Further the dealer was not able to establish that the purchases were made in pursuance of any order. The copy of the order of the Ex-U.P. Principal has not been adduced. The dealer was also not able to establish co-relation between the purchases and the despatches of the goods. Therefore, the dealer had failed to prove that the goods were purchased for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of C.S.T. v. M/s. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, 1992 UPTC 971. 5. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the Tribunal has observed that necessary details have been maintained in which the name of the farmers, 6R, 9R, Mandi fees, and the names of the purchasers are mentioned. He further submitted that the orders have been received on telephone. Therefore, on these facts, the Tribunal has rightly held that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. 6. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. He further submitted that the orders have been received on telephone. Therefore, on these facts, the Tribunal has rightly held that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. 6. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax read as follows : “6-A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale.—(1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods. (2) If the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) are true, he may, at the time of, or any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Explanation.—In this section, “assessing authority”, in relation to a dealer, means the authority for the time being competent to assess the tax payable by the dealer under this Act.” 7. Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the goods had not moved from one State to another State as a result of sale. Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the goods had not moved from one State to another State as a result of sale. Admittedly, the goods were moved from the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P. There is no dispute in this regard. There appears to be no dispute with regard to the U.P. Assessment. The dealer had not claimed any exemption on the related purchases that the said purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. The said purchases were shown on his own account and the liability of tax has been admitted and paid. Therefore, the claim of the dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal cannot be accepted. Further the dealer was not able to substantiate its claim that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal by adducing any order. No details of the order received on telephone have been furnished. All the authorities below including the Tribunal have recorded the finding that there was no co-relation between the purchases and despatches of the goods. On these facts, the dealer was not able to establish that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal in the course of inter-State purchases. 8. The Apex Court in the case of C.S.T. v. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, 1992 UPTC 971 has held that if the goods are purchased for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and after the purchases, the same goods are despatched outside the Slate of U.P. at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal and there is co-relation between the purchases and despatches then such transactions are in the course of inter-State purchases and the State has no jurisdiction to levy the tax. Therefore, the burden lies on the dealer to prove that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal in the course of inter-State purchases. The Tribunal has committed the patent error in accepting the claim of the dealer that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. ————