JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Sri R.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is a revision petition filed by the State wherein the following question of law has been admitted :- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting exemption u/s 5(3) of Central Sales Act treating the transaction as sale in the course of export whereas the sale was for export to Ex. U.P. exporter?" 3. The case of the revisionist is that the finding of the first Appellate Authority was that the dealer in the present case was acting as an agent of the farmers and was auctioning the paddy to the highest bidder. The authority came to the conclusion that since the paddy was being auctioned to the highest bidder, even if the paddy was thereafter exported, the same would not come within the definition of "Sale in The Course of Export" and would be only 'Sale For Export'. The relevant part of the order of the first Appellate Authority is provided below :- 4. Against the above order, the dealer/respondent went in appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal took into consideration the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Babu Kalika Prasad Traders Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax reported in 2012 N.T.N. Vol-49 page 218, which had considered the Supreme Court judgement in State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Bilders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 524. Upon considering the above judgements, the Tribunal came to the following finding:- 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist Mr. Bipin Kumar Pandey argued that in the present case no clear finding could be reached with regard to the goods being sold in the course of export, and accordingly, argued that the benefit of Section 5(3) of Central Sales Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') would not be applicable, and therefore, exemption would not be available to the dealer. He relied on the order passed by the first Appellate Authority to buttress his arguments. 6. Per contra, Mr. R.R. Agarwal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the dealer/respondent has placed reliance on the case of Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). 7. He relied on the order passed by the first Appellate Authority to buttress his arguments. 6. Per contra, Mr. R.R. Agarwal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the dealer/respondent has placed reliance on the case of Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). 7. Upon considering the arguments placed by counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the orders passed by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, I am of the view that the first Appellate Authority did not consider certain factual aspects that have later been considered by the Tribunal. 8. The undisputed facts that emerge from the order passed by the Tribunal are that the dealer/respondent had produced certificate of the foreign buyers, purchase orders of the foreign buyers, bills of lading and the Form-H as required under the Act. These documents strengthened the belief of the Tribunal that the sales were made by the dealer/respondent in the course of export. 9. One may also rely on the relevant paragraphs of the judgement passed in Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) that explains the interpretation of Section 5(3) of the Act. Relevant paragraphs are delineated below :- "23. When we analyse all these decisions in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Act 103 of 1976 and on the interpretation placed on Section 5(3) of the CST Act, the following principles emerge: To constitute a sale in the course of export there must be an intention on the part of both the buyer and the seller to export. There must be obligation to export, and there must be an actual export. The obligation may arise by reason of statute, contract between the parties, or from mutual understanding or agreement between them, or even from the nature of the transaction which links the sale to export. To occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation, that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it, without which a transaction sale cannot be called a sale in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India. 24. To occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation, that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it, without which a transaction sale cannot be called a sale in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India. 24. The phrase "sale in the course of export" comprises in itself three essentials: (i) that there must be a sale; (ii) that goods must actually be exported; and (iii) that the sale must be a part and parcel of the export. The word "occasion" is used as a verb and means "to cause" or "to be the immediate cause of". Therefore, the words "occasioning the export" mean the factors, which were the immediate cause of export. The words "to comply with the agreement or order" mean all transactions which are inextricably linked with the agreement or order occasioning that export. The expression "in relation to" are words of comprehensiveness, which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance, depending on the context in which it is used and they are not words of restrictive content and ought not be so construed. 25. Therefore, the test to be applied is, whether there is an inseverable link between the local sale or purchase on export and if it is clear that the local sale or purchase between the parties is inextricably linked with the export of the goods, then a claim under Section 5(3) for exemption from State sales tax is justified, in which case, the same goods theory has no application." 10. It may be noted that circular No.66/31-3-99 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, also clarifies the situation wherein the benefit of exemption is to be granted to the dealer. Relevant paragraph is quoted below :- 11. Upon a perusal of aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the nature of sale, if it is in the course of export, is exempted under Section 5(3) of the Act. 12. From a reading of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal has relied upon the certificate of the foreign buyers, purchase orders of the foreign buyers, bills of lading and the Form-H submitted under the Act to come to a finding that in the present case the goods were sold in the course of export. Based upon this finding, the Tribunal had come to the finding that the sale is exempted under Section 5(3) of the Act. 13. This Court in The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/s Godfrey Philips India Limited [Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:22365 (Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.150 of 2023 decided on February 12, 2024)] after considering the Supreme Court judgements in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 and in Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 327 had came to the finding that is delineated below :- "12. The principles governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the UPVAT Act, 2008 are imbued with a presumption of finality attached to judgments and orders pronounced by the appellate authorities. High Courts, in their capacity as revisional bodies, are entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the sanctity of such judgments and orders, and such, should not lightly disturb them unless compelling reasons of paramount significance necessitate such intervention. It is imperative to underscore that revisional jurisdiction is not designed as a mechanism for the indiscriminate prelitigation of cases or the unwarranted reopening of matters that have been adjudicated and settled through due process. High Courts, in the exercise of their revisional jurisdiction are circumscribed by certain fundamental principles that underscore the sanctity of factual findings arrived at by lower courts or tribunals. Ordinarily, High Courts are precluded from intervening in factual findings unless such findings exhibit characteristics of perversity, are predicated on no evidence whatsoever, or evince a palpable and egregious error of law. The cardinal principle underlying revisional jurisdiction mandates that High Courts refrain from engaging in the revaluation of factual evidence or arrogating to themselves the authority to substitute their own findings for those meticulously arrived at by the lower courts or tribunals. 13. Revisional jurisdiction, as envisaged under the UPVAT Act, 2008, is meticulously tailored to address jurisdictional errors and excesses of law that may have permeated the adjudicative process at lower echelons of the judicial hierarchy. It is incumbent upon High Courts, when exercising revisional jurisdiction, to vigilantly scrutinize the legal landscape and ascertain whether the impugned judgment or order suffers from any infirmities of jurisdictional import or egregious deviations from the normative contours of legal propriety. It is incumbent upon High Courts, when exercising revisional jurisdiction, to vigilantly scrutinize the legal landscape and ascertain whether the impugned judgment or order suffers from any infirmities of jurisdictional import or egregious deviations from the normative contours of legal propriety. The legislative intent underpinning the conferment of revisional jurisdiction upon High Courts is imbued with a profound commitment to the principles of judicial economy, finality, and legal certainty. Revisional jurisdiction is not conceived as a vehicle for the protracted re-examination of factual matrices, or the interminable redressal of grievances already exhaustively adjudicated upon by the lower courts or tribunals. Rather, it constitutes an instrumental mechanism for rectifying egregious legal errors or jurisdictional excesses that may have vitiated the adjudicative process, thereby ensuring the equitable and efficacious administrative of justice." 14. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal as the findings of the Tribunal are based on the materials placed before it and not a figment of their imagination. There is no perversity whatsoever in the order passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, the same is upheld. The question of law is answered against the revisionist and in favour of the dealer/respondent. 15. Ergo, the revision petition is dismissed.