Rajagopalan, J.-These applications are in relation to assessment proceedings; of 1949-50 and 1950-51. The only question that was argued before us was whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in the interpretation it placed upon the notification No. 1011 dated 28th May, 1949. The notification runs: “In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939), as amended by Madras Act XXV of 1947 His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby exempts from the tax payable under the said Act, goods which at the time when the contract of sale or purchase in respect thereof is made are actually in the Cochin State.” The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed by the assessee that the cotton yarn, which he subsequently sold, was purchased by the assessee in Cochin State. Nor was it disputed that the cotton yarn was sold within the Madras State. Under Rule 4-A(1) read with R.4(1) of the Turn-over Rules, the assessee as the first dealer in yarn within the State of Madras was liable to pay the tax on the sales turn-over. That liability he could escape only if he could get the benefit of the exemption granted by the Notification No.1011: and that exemption he could claim only if he could prove that at the time he entered into the agreements to sell that cotton yarn within the State of Madras, the goods were actually in Cochin State. The Tribunal observed that such evidence the assessee failed to furnish. Therefore, the petitioner could not prove that he was entitled to the exemption he claimed, and the Tribunal rightly rejected his claim. The petitions fail and are dismissed with costs in T.R.C. No.359 of 1953 only Counsel’s fee Rs.100. K.S. ----- Petitions dismissed.