Judgment :- 1. The common assessee in these cases is a firm, and the firm was assessed to sales-tax for three different years. The firm is importing foreign cotton and supplying the same to several mills in India; and the assessments were on the sales effected by the firm to the several mills of the foreign cotton imported by it. The firm objected to the assessments contending that the transactions under which the foreign cotton was passed on to the mills were not sales but were only the result of agency agreements, so that those transactions were not assessable to sales-tax; and that even if the transactions were sales, Art.286(1) (b) of the Constitution read with S.5 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 saved such transactions from assessment to tax. Both these contentions were rejected by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority; but the Appellate Tribunal accepted both the contentions. Hence, the State has filed these revision cases. 2. On the first question the Government Pleader has contended, on the strength of two decisions of the Madras High Court, that the transactions involved in these cases were really sales and not transfers under agency arrangements. We have seen those decisions; and we have also heard fairly elaborate arguments on the second question. We feel that the assessee-firm is entitled to succeed on the second question even if the firm does not succeed on the first question. Therefore, we proceed to consider the second question straightaway; and we proceed as if the transactions were sales without deciding that question. 3. Art.286 (1) (b) inter alia provides that no law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale of goods, where such sale takes place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India. Clause(2) of the same Article provides, inter alia, that Parliament may by law formulate principles for determining when a sale of goods takes place in the manner mentioned in clause (1). S.5 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 enacts, inter alia again, that a sale of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale either occasions such import, or, etc. S.5 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 enacts, inter alia again, that a sale of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale either occasions such import, or, etc. We may incidentally mention that S.3 of the Central Sales Tax Act dealing with the sale or purchase of goods in inter-state trade or commerce also uses similar language. The reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal is that the sales involved in these cases the sales by the assessee-firm to the several mills are sales in the course of import of the cotton from foreign countries. 4. Now, the State contends that, for a sale to come within the mischief of the expression'in the course of the import of the goods', it should have preceded the import: then only the sale could have occasioned the import. This question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a case from Madras in K. G Khosla and Co. (P) Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, Madras (1966:17 STC. 473). In that case, the Madras High Court held that only sales which preceded import could have occasioned the import and could have come within the expression'in the course of the import of the goods'. But the Supreme Court reversed the said decision and held that for a sale to have occasioned the import, it was not necessary that the sale should have preceded the import. The Supreme Court observed that, if the import was the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or an incident of such contract, the import, even if it preceded the sale, was necessitated by the sale or was the result of the sale: in other words; the sale occasioned the import. And such an import came within sub-section (2) of S.5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In considering this question, the Supreme Court considered two sections, S.5 and S.3, relating to import or export of goods and inter-state trade and commerce respectively. And such an import came within sub-section (2) of S.5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In considering this question, the Supreme Court considered two sections, S.5 and S.3, relating to import or export of goods and inter-state trade and commerce respectively. The Supreme Court said that the expression 'sale occasioning import' occurred in both the above sections and it should have the same meaning in both the sections: and the Supreme Court further observed that, if as a result of a covenant or as a result of an incident of such contract the import was affected, then the import preceding the actual sale or transfer of goods was also an import coming within the mischief of S.5 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 5. Whether an import was occasioned by the particular contract of sale has thus to be considered in the light of the provisions in the contract of sale. In the case before the Supreme Court, the contract of sale provided that the goods imported should not be. diverted for any other purpose. In that case, the goods were manufactured by the foreign manufacturer according to the needs of the consumer, then imported by the assessee and supplied to the consumer. The assessee could not have diverted the goods to anybody else for any other purpose under the contract. Similar provision appears in the contracts by the assessee¬firm with the several mills in the cases in hand. There are other provisions also in such contracts, which point in the same direction. We shall point out a few of them which indubitably show that the transactions between the assessee-firm and the mills were on behalf of the mills and that the import was a direct result of such provisions in the contracts, in other words, that the import was occasioned by such provisions. One of the conditions in the contract is that the goods imported should not, under any circumstances, be delivered from its determined destination i.e., the mills. Secondly, the relative shipping documents were issued by the foreign seller in the names of the respective mills and not in the name of the assessee-firm. One of the conditions in the contract is that the goods imported should not, under any circumstances, be delivered from its determined destination i.e., the mills. Secondly, the relative shipping documents were issued by the foreign seller in the names of the respective mills and not in the name of the assessee-firm. Again, the import licence issued to the mills authorise the mills to import the goods; and on the reverse of these licences is stated that the goods for the import of which the licences were granted should be the property of the licensees at the time of clearance through the customs. Still further, the letters of authorisation issued by the Government authorising the assessee-firm to import the cotton show that the assessee had to do it purely as an agent of the licensees and the imported goods would be the property of the licensees both at the time of clearance through the customs and subsequent thereto. We do not propose to add to the list of such provisions in the contracts entered into by the assessee-firm with the several mills. These provisions clearly indicate that the import was necessitated or occasioned by the contracts between the assessee-firm and the mills. 6. For these reasons we agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal and dismiss these revision cases. However, we do not pass any order regarding costs.