JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru - As the controversy involved in these three revisions is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgment treating the Trade Tax Revision No. 519 of 2002 as leading case at the stage of admission itself. These are assessee's revisions for the assessment year 1993-94 (Central), 1992-93 (Central), 1994-95 (Central) against an order of the Tribunal dated 22nd of February, 2002. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited, company and has its registered office at Okhla, New Delhi. The applicant has sales depots at Dholpur, Jaipur and Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthan and Morena in Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The applicant has stated that it does not have any place of storage, godown nor does it have any activity of purchase and sale of any goods in the State of U.P. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee on the basis of a survey made on 15th of July, 1994 at the premises of another party, namely, M/s. Arctic Drinks Pvt. Ltd. The assessee does not deny that M/s. Arctic Drinks, Agra Beverages Corporation are both manufacturing beverages, which are sold in U.P., Rajasthan and M.P. An assessment order was passed for the year 1993-94 by which the total turnover of Central sales were determined at Rs. 4,15,84,976. Aggrieved by this assessment the assessee filed an appeal under section 9. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by an order passed on 21st of July, 2001 against which the assessee filed a second appeal. The Tribunal by its order dated February 22, 2002 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but has confirmed the turnover of Central sales for the year in dispute at Rs. 6,00,000 and has confirmed the tax liability of Rs. 90,000. The liability, which has been confirmed is on the basis of parchas 5, 6 and 7. In the assessment order discussion has been made with regard to these parchas, which shows that a certain party by the name of Jai Sales situate in Rajasthan had placed the orders of worth Rs. 35,000 and the letters have been received by one V. P. Gulati, who is manager in common to both Rajasthan Beverages and to M/s. Arctic Drinks. 35,000 and the letters have been received by one V. P. Gulati, who is manager in common to both Rajasthan Beverages and to M/s. Arctic Drinks. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that in fact the assessee had no place of business, which was engaged in selling or purchasing in Agra. He has referred to the findings of the Tribunal, which are recorded in paragraph 10 of the Tribunal's order, which is quoted hereunder : "We find that the documents seized on survey dated 15th July, 1994 do not conclusively go to establish that the sales shown by the appellant through its depot at Rajasthan and M.P. during the years 1992-93 to 1994-95, as reflected from the balance sheet are inter-State sales of appellant from Agra." His argument is that in view of the above finding there was no justification whatsoever for the imposition of Central sales tax for a turnover of Rs. 6 lacs from the State of U.P. The learned counsel has argued that an examination of the parchas, which were apprehended on April 15, 1994 does not establish the fact that any movement of goods had taken place from the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P. in pursuance of a prior order of contract. He has argued that in fact the other documents, which were apprehended at the time of the same survey dated July 15, 1994 establish that stock transfers had been made by Agra Beverages to these branches and that case has been accepted by the Department in the assessments made for the same company. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has argued that the parchas apprehended at the time of survey showed the exchange of money between Agra Beverages and Rajasthan Beverages clearly established that the goods have been sent from Agra to Rajasthan. I have heard learned counsels on both sides at length and also perused the material on record. On a perusal of the parchas it cannot be said that these parchas conclusively establish that any order had been placed by Jai Sales on the assessee which could be termed a prior order on the basis of which the goods have moved from U.P. to Rajasthan. The parchas are confined to the payment of Rs. 35,000 and its receipts and acknowledgment. The parchas are confined to the payment of Rs. 35,000 and its receipts and acknowledgment. The Tribunal has itself recorded two things firstly in paragraph 10 that the material apprehended did not conclusively proof that the assessee had made any inter-State sales from Agra and the second thing recorded by the Tribunal is that the inter-State sales and stock transfers of the two sisters concern have been accepted by the Department. Considering the fact that the Tribunal has also not recorded any finding that the assessee had any storage space or store or any manufacturing unit in Agra from where it could have sent the beverages from Agra in U.P. to Rajasthan. The conclusion drawn that the assessee had made inter-State sales from Agra to Rajasthan is not justified. It makes no sense that the assessee which has no manufacturing unit would first get the goods in Agra and then send it to Rajasthan when it has available to do the beverage in Rajasthan itself, which is sent by sisters concern as stock transfer. In view of the above, the imposition made to the extent of a turnover of Rs. 6 lacs is bad and not justified. The order of the Tribunal to this extent is set aside. These three revisions are allowed as above. No cost.