Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. This is a batch of cases in which the facts are identical and the point of law arising is also the same. In respect of 14 of the cases, the assessments were made on the basis of escaped turnovers and the other cases were original assessments under S. 12. The facts as found in these cases, are as follows : The assessees are dealers and commission agents in respect of chillies, pulses, foodgrains, ground nut kernel, cotton, cotton seeds etc. In these cases, most of the disputed turnovers related to chillies. When the agricultural produce are brought by agriculturist producers, the assessees as commission agents sell part of the goods on commission account and leave a small portion of the commodities which they require for their own business to be transferred to them to "self" account. In the pattials given to the agriculturist producer, the total price of the commodity was shown in respect of the later type of transactions and after deducting the commission payable, the balance was shown in the pattial as payable to the producer. In the purchase pattials of the appellant's independent business, the total amount, without deducting the commission, was shown as the purchase amount and the goods are taken as "self" in the ledger folio. These transfers to their own account were duly accounted for in the commission pattials issued for the regular commission transactions in a comprehensive manner. On these facts, the assessing authorities held that there was a sale by the assessee as a commission agent of the agriculturalist principal to himself as a dealer and in respect of those transactions the assessee was liable to pay sales-tax as a commission agent. The Tribunal took the view that the method of preparing the voucher, either as a sale bill or a bought note, was not the sole criterion for deciding the nature of the transactions, that the cultivators handed over the goods to the assessee and received the sale price at once and the goods were never deposited with the assessee for sale on an agreed commission. Therefore, there was no sale by the assessee as a commission agent to himself as a dealer, but there was a direct purchase in respect of those transactions from the agriculturist-producers by the assessee. In that view, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disputed turnovers. Therefore, there was no sale by the assessee as a commission agent to himself as a dealer, but there was a direct purchase in respect of those transactions from the agriculturist-producers by the assessee. In that view, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disputed turnovers. In these revision petitions, the learned counsel for the Revenue contended that there is no evidence to show that the agriculturist-producers handed over the goods to the assessee never acted as their commission agents. We are in entire agreement with this argument of the learned counsel. Wherefrom the Tribunal got the fact that the agriculturist producers were selling their goods directly to the assessee is not made clear in the order. On the other hand, it was the admitted case of the assessees themselves that they were acting as the commission agents of the agriculturist-producers, but only in respect of a portion of the turnover, which was sold to themselves as dealers, they contended that they were not acting as commission agents. In respect of these transactions where the goods were transferred to third parties, the assessee themselves accepted their liability to pay the sales-tax as commission agents. The AO and the appellate authority had clearly found that the assessees were submitting commission pattials to the agriculturist-producers wherein they have duly accounted for the commission in respect of all the transactions in a comprehensive manner including those which they themselves have purchased as dealers. There could be a sale by an assessee as a commission agent of agriculturist-producer to himself for re-sale would admit of no doubt. The definition of dealer in S. 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General ST Act (1 of 1959) includes a commission agent and the definition of turnover in S. 2(r) takes within it the aggregate amount for which goods are bought or sold by a dealer, either directly or through another on his own account or on account of others. Therefore, a commission agent in respect of his turnover as commission agent would be liable to pay sales-tax. On almost identical facts, this Court, in a case reported in Ramasamy Gounder & Sons vs. State of Madras held that the assessee, who sold the goods on behalf of the agriculturist principals to themselves for resale on their own account and earned their selling agency commission, were liable to be assessed for sales tax. On almost identical facts, this Court, in a case reported in Ramasamy Gounder & Sons vs. State of Madras held that the assessee, who sold the goods on behalf of the agriculturist principals to themselves for resale on their own account and earned their selling agency commission, were liable to be assessed for sales tax. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal could not be accepted. We accordingly, set aside the order of the Tribunal and confirm the assessment of the disputed turnovers. The petitions are allowed. The petitioner will be entitled to his cost. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. in each.