JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:- A common question arises in this batch of Appeals and Special Leave Petitions.

2. Leave granted in S.L.Ps.

3. In Commr. of Sales Tax, U.P. v.Hanuman Trading Co., (1979) 43 STC 408 a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the purchases made by Commission Agents in U.P. on behalf of the principals outside the State, where the goods so purchased were despatched to such principals, were inter State purchases not exigible to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. This decision was rendered on October 6, 1978. Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 1982 is preferred against the same. Following the said decision a large number of cases were disposed of by the Allahabad High Court which have given rise to the other Civil Appeals and the S.L.Ps. posted before us. Since the facts in all these appeals are stated to be identical, it is enough to refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 1982. The facts as found recorded in the order of the High Court are to the following effect

The respondent-assessee, Hanuman Trading Company, is a registered dealer in Uttar Pradesh, dealing in foodgrains and oils among others. During the year in question, he purchased the said commodities both on his own account as well as for and on behalf of his ex-U.P. Principals i.e., dealers located outside the State of U. P. We are not concerned with the purchases made by the respondent dealer on his own account, but only with the purchases made by him as the commission agent of the Ex-U.P. Principals. These purchases were made by the respondent-dealer from three sources, namely: (1) from Registered Dealers, (2) from Cartmen, and (3) from Agriculturists. So far as purchases made from registered dealers are concerned, we are not concerned with them. The learned counsel for the State of U. P. stated before us that fix thereon is payable by the selling dealer. The controversy thus narrows down to purchases made by the respondent-dealer from cartmen and agriculturists. The finding of the High Court with respect to the nature of the transactions may be set out in their own words (1978 Tax LR 2361 at p. 23&4, para. 4):

"In the present cases, the purchase orders placed by the ex-U.P. principals to the assessee are not on the record but, from the conduct of the parties and on the facts found, it is clear that the ex-U.P. principals contracted with the assessee that he should purchase goods on their behalf in U. P. and despatch them to ex-U. P. destinations on the payment of commission....... the goods were sent to the ex-U. P. principals in fulfilment of the contract."

4. Sales of agricultural produce by agriculturists are exempt from tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act by virtue of the proviso to the definition of the expression "dealer" in clause (e) of Section 2. The proviso says that a person who sells agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest, whether as an owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, or who sells poultry or dairy products from fowls or animals kept by him shall not, in respect of such goods, be treated as a dealer." In such a case, it is stated, purchase tax is leviable on the purchaser. If, however, the purchase is an inter-State purchase as defined by Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 then the State Legislature becomes disabled from taxing it by virtue of Article 286(1) of the Constitution of India. It is this aspect which lies at the root of the grievance of the State, and it is precisely for this reason that it seeks to treat the purchases in question as intrastate purchases, exigible to purchase-tax under Section 3-D of the State Act.

5. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 defines the inter-State sale/purchase. Omitting the Explanations which are not necessary for our purpose, the Section reads as follows:

"3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.- A sale or