JUDGMENT
K.S. Paripoornan, J.
1. The revenue is the revision-petitioner. The respondent in this revision is the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in rubber having its head office in Kottayam and branches all over India. The only question that falls for consideration in this case is whether for the assessment year 1977-78, a turnover of Rs. 3,53,373 representing the value of 53,856 kilograms of rubber purchased by the assessee’s Jullundur and Delhi branches from the open prison at Nettukaltheri near Kattakkada (Kerala) is assessable as the “last purchase” within the State of Kerala. The plea of the assessee was that the purchase was in the course of the inter-State trade and that the said turnover is not assessable under the State Act. The assessing authority held that the rubber was purchased by the assessee from the open prison at Nettukaltheri in this State and that the transaction was complete within this State and so exigible to tax under the State Act. It. was affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover amounting to Rs. 3.53,373 formed part of inter-State purchases of rubber by the assessee’s branches and so the said turnover cannot be included for the purpose of assessment under the State Act. The Revenue has filed this tax revision case against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 8th April, 1985.
2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader, Mr. T. Karunakaran Nambiar, and also counsel for the respondent-assessee Sri. A. Vijayan Menon. The only point canvassed by counsel for the Revenue was that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the purchase of rubber by the assessee’s branches (Jullundur and Delhi) from the open prison at Nettukaltheri was “inter-State”, that there was no “inter-State” transaction and so the said turnover is exigible to tax under the State Act. Counsel stressed the fact that the goods were delivered in this State and the sale proceeds also were paid within this State, which will show that the transaction was complete within the State of Kerala. The Appellate Tribunal adverted to the invoices, N forms and lorry receipts and after stressing the fact that the N forms in respect of transactions amounting to Rs. 1,95,555 was despatched by the Superintendent, Open Prison, Nettukaltheri, to the assessee’s branches at Jullundur and Delhi, held that the movement of 29,807 kilograms of rubber valued at Rs. 1,95,555 was occasioned by the contract of sale between the authorities of open prison at Nettukaltheri and the assessee’s branches outside the State (Jullundur and Delhi). It is evident that the head office of the appellant as well the branches were purchasing rubber from the open prison at Nettukaltheri and also from other dealers in the State. The open prison authorities had despatched other quantities also. Copies of the “N forms” produced before the authorities were produced before us for perusal. It is evident therefrom as also the statement furnished by the Superintendent, Open Prison, that the rubber was despatched by the Superintendent of Open Prison to the branches of the assessee at Jullundur and Delhi. On a perusal of the relevant N forms, we have no doubt in our mind that the movement of the goods from this State to Jullundur and Delhi was as a result of the terms in the contract of sale between the seller of the goods in this State and the purchasers, who are outside the State. It cannot be denied that there is nexus between the movement of the goods and the contract of sale. The seller of the goods, the Superintendent of Open Prison in this State was fully aware that goods were despatched to places outside Kerala. It is evident that the movement of the goods from this State to places outside this State took place as a result of an understanding between the seller in this State and the purchasers outside this State. On these premises and the further fact that the goods did move from the State of Kerala to places outside the State, it necessarily follows that the transactions impugned in this case were in fact inter-State purchases of rubber by the branches of the respondent-assessee. If the movement of the goods from this State to outside the State is by reason of a statute or contract between the parties or as a result of a mutual understanding or agreement between them, it will be a case of inter-State purchase. We have no doubt that in the light of the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co., Coonoor v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam [1964] 15 STC 753 (SC) at pp. 759 and 760 as also the decision of the Supreme Court in English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC) the instant transactions were in fact inter-State purchases of rubber by the branches of the respondent-assessee. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. We see no error either in the reasoning or in the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal in accepting the plea of the assessee in that regard. There is no error of law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Indeed the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the movement of 29,807 kilograms of rubber was occasioned by the contract of sale between the open prison at Nettukaltheri and the assessee’s branches outside the State and that there was sufficient link between the movement of the goods and the contract of sale, are findings of fact based on sufficient material. The findings arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal are questions of fact. Even if, it is assumed that it is a mixed question of fact and law, we should state that the findings are warranted by the materials available before the Appellate Tribunal and adverted to by it in the appellate order, like the invoices, N forms, certificate of ownership, etc. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the instant transactions are inter-State in character and not exigible to sales tax under State Act, is warranted and justified. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in its view that the purchases of rubber by the respondent-assessee from the open prison at Nettukaltheri was in the course of inter-State trade and so the assessee is not liable to be taxed on the purchase turnover of rubber under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The question formulated in paragraph 6(A) is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. We also hold that the decision relied on by the Appellate Tribunal, English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC), is not distinguishable on facts and is applicable to the facts of this case. We hold that the tax revision case is without merit.
3. Counsel for the Revenue also contended that the statement of the Appellate Tribunal that the letter of the Superintendent of Prisons to the effect that the delivery of the goods was effected at Nettukaltheri within Kerala is “not reliable”, is unwarranted and so perverse. This forms subject-matter of question No. (c). Since the original of the letter referred to was not available in the file, nor was there any material to show that the sales of rubber were effected as stated in true copy of the letter, the Tribunal doubted its genuineness. For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to hold that even on the basis of N forms, invoices and certificates of ownership adverted to and relied on by the Appellate Tribunal, the conclusion reached by it, that there was sufficient link between the movement of goods and the contract of sale and that the seller was aware that the goods were sent outside the State and so the transactions were inter-State in character is justified. The tax revision case is without merit and it is dismissed. No other point was argued by the Revenue.
4. Issue carbon copies of the judgment to counsel for the petitioner and to the Government Pleader on usual terms.