JUDGMENT
Jeevan Reddy, J.
1. This tax revision case is preferred against an order of remand by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. The relevant facts are : The petitioner-assessee submitted A-2 returns disclosing a gross turnover of Rs. 3,56,604, claiming that turnover in an amount of Rs. 1,18,943.70 is exempt. The net turnover was shown at Rs. 2,37,560.50. Against the order of assessment dated 10th July, 1979, rejecting his contention, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner contending that what were sold by him were watery coconuts and not tender coconuts. By his order dated 17th April, 1980, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the assessing authority for detailed verification and to pass a fresh order of assessment after affording an opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the Commercial Tax Officer made a fresh assessment, practically reaffirming his earlier order. On this occasion, however, the assessee raised a contention that in respect of a turnover of Rs. 2,12,301.45, they acted as selling agents on behalf of the resident dealers and therefore, not liable to pay tax. This contention was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer holding that inasmuch as the assessee failed to file A-5 returns, this contention cannot be accepted. Another item in respect of which exemption was claimed on this occasion was Rs. 1,43,767.25. The contention of the assessee was that in respect of this turnover they acted as selling agents on behalf of the principals who are horticulturists and since there is no Liability on the principals, the agent is equally not liable to pay tax. This contention was also rejected on the ground that the principals on whose behalf the petitioner acted are unregistered dealers, in which case the assessee is liable to pay tax under section 11 of the Act. On appeal, the first appellate authority considered a further enquiry essential to establish the real nature of the transactions entered into by the appellant and accordingly remanded the matter again for fresh enquiry and assessment. The assessee questioned the appellate order by way of a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which refused to interfere.
3. We have heard Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy and perused the records. We are not satisfied that any interference is called for in this matter under section 22 of the Act. Both the appellate authorities were of the opinion that a further investigation is necessary to determine whether the assessee is liable to be taxed on the transactions in question. The Tribunal correctly observed that whether the goods in question fall under entry 5 of the Third Schedule or entry 10 of the Second Schedule, they are taxable at the point of last purchase in the State, but were rightly of the opinion that all the facts have to be gone into with a view to find out as to who the last purchaser is. We are unable to say that the Tribunal have decided a question of law erroneously or have failed to decide any question of law within the meaning of section 22. No interference is, therefore, called for in this revision case.
4. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 150.
5. Petition dismissed.