RAJES KUMAR, J. - Present four revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 3, 1998 relating to the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an owner of buses and have entered into a contract with Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Limited, Phoolpur, Allahabad. M/s. Bharat Pump and Compressors Limited, Naini, Allahabad and the General Electric Company of India Limited, Naini, Allahabad for providing the buses for the transportation of their employees from their place of residence to the factory to and fro. In pursuance of the contract, buses were provided and hire charges were received as per contract. The assessing authority levied the tax on the hire charges received from the aforesaid companies under section 3F of the Act towards transfer of right to use the buses. Orders of the assessing authority have been confirmed in first appeals. The applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeals in part. The Tribunal has reduced the turnover but upheld the orders of the assessing authority levying the tax on the hire charges under section 3F of the Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the buses were provided to IFFCO, BPCL and GEC, companies for transportation of their employees from their residence to the factory and from factory to their residence. He submitted that the effective control over the vehicles have never been passed on to the aforesaid three companies and always remained with the applicant. He submitted that the driver and other employees of the vehicles were of the applicant; road permit was in the name of the applicant; diesel and other maintenance expenses were borne by the applicant; prices were fixed with reference to the kilometer; applicant had to take the insurance for the vehicles and the workmen. It was also agreed that in case of failure to provide the vehicle every day, the applicant would be liable for penalty and the earnest money would be forfeited. On these facts, it is submitted that the possession of the vehicles was never given to the aforesaid companies and the effective control over the vehicles was always remained with the applicant. He submitted that for the levy of tax under section 3F of the Act under the transfer of right to use the goods, the transfer of possession is sine qua non. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. reported in [2002] 126 STC 114; [2002] UPTC 273 (SC); [2002] JT 2 SC 493, Division Bench decisions of this court in the case of Ahuja Goods Agency v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1997] 106 STC 540; [1997] UPTC 629; [1997] 11 NTN 484, Commissioner, Trade Tax v. Jamuna Prosad Jaiswal reported in [2008] 13 VST 403; [2006] UPTC 285; [2005] 28 NTN 156, Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sunil Agrawal reported in [2006] 29 NTN 98 and the latest judgment of the apex court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India in writ petition (Civil) No. 183 of 2003 decided on March 2, 2006 ([2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95).

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that under the agreement after providing the vehicles each day, the vehicles had gone under the control of the aforesaid three companies and the movement of the vehicles was fully controlled and governed by the companies. He submitted that during the period, the vehicles were engaged for the transportation of their employees from one place to another place, the vehicles were in effective control of the companies and the applicant had completely lost the control over the vehicles, thus, on the facts of the case, there was a transfer of right to use the vehicles in favour of the companies and hire charges received for such transfe