Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J. The respondents herein are dealers in hides and skins. They had taken out a licence to deal in hides and skins under form IV for the year 1952-53. In the course of the assessment, the assessing authority fixed their taxable turnover at Rs. 4, 83, 615-12-1 and licensed turnover at Rs. 58, 11, 971-4-8. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh decision to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with reference to certain additional grounds of attack against the assessment raised by the respondents before the Tribunal. Even after the remand the Appellate Assistant Commissioner again dismissed the appeal. When the matter again came before the Tribunal, the dispute centred round, among other things, on a turnover of Rs. 2, 34, 899.74, which represented sales of tanned hides and skins effected by the respondents on behalf of non-resident dealers. The contention of the respondents in relation to the above turnover was that the same should be taken to be covered by their licence in form IV and, as such, cannot be treated as unlicensed transactions and brought to charge under the multi-point levy. The revenue, however, contended that the respondents having acted as agents of non-resident principals in respect of the said sales turnover, the same cannot be taken to be covered by the petitioner's licence. According to the revenue, the respondents' licence will cover only their own transaction of purchase or sale of hides and skins and cannot be take to cover the respondents' agency transaction either on behalf of resident principals or on behalf of non-resident principals. The Tribunal considered these rival contentions and ultimately held that the respondents' licence will cover their agency transactions carried on on behalf of the non-resident principals as well. The Tribunal considered these rival contentions and ultimately held that the respondents' licence will cover their agency transactions carried on on behalf of the non-resident principals as well. The Tribunal also held that even if the respondents' agency transactions are taken to be unlicensed transactions, it cannot be brought to charge under the multi-point levy in view of the decision of this court in P. Hajee Abdul Wahab and Sons v. Government of Madras The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal.According to the revenue, the decision of the Tribunal that the disputed turnover is covered by the respondents' licence and, as such, entitled to the benefit of single point levy and that if the respondents' agency transactions are treated to be unlicensed, still the turnover could not be taxed is not tenable at all. It is said that the decision in P. Hajee Abdul Wahab and sons v. Government of Madras on which the Tribunal relies, has been held to be wrong by a later decision of a Full Bench of this Court. It is further is that the Tribunal has entirely overlooked the statutory provisions and equated the agency transactions with the respondents' own transactions, that though under section 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, an agent of the non-resident principals is deemed to be a dealer, such an agent cannot be treated to be a dealer dealing on his own behalf and that, therefore, the fact that the assessees have taken out a licence for his dealings in hides and skins will not entitled him to get the benefit of that licence in respect of his agency transactions either on behalf of the resident principals or on behalf of the non-resident principals. As regards the view taken by the Tribunal that even if the sales of hides and skins effected by the petitioners as agents of non-resident principals are taken to be unlicensed, they cannot be charged at multi-point levy, it can straightway be said that the said view cannot any longer be tenable in view of the later decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Madras v. M. A. Noor Mohamed and Co.