Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. The respondents-assessees are exporters of iron manganese ore. For the asst. yr. 1960-61 they returned a turnover of Rs. 17, 13, 142.26 and claimed exemption in respect of the entirety on the ground that the turnover related to export sales. Rejecting the contention, the AO held that the assessee are not the exporters and that the sales are local sales liable to the taxed under the Tamil Nadu General ST Act. This view was confirmed by the AAC; but, on further appeal, the Tribunal held that the entire turnover was exempt from sales-tax on the ground that they are export sales. The facts are not quite clear; but, it is seen from the order of the AAC that a major portion of the turnover related to exports by the State Trading corporation of India. The contracts were entered into by the State Trading Corporation of India with for the buyers. The export licences are also only with the State Trading Corporation of India. Since the exports of manganese ore was channelised some time from the middle of 1960 through the State Trading Corporation of India the assessees could not themselves export directly. The bill of lading was also taken in the name of the State Trading Corporation of India. The only fact appearing on which the assessees wanted to rely was that the assessees themselves raised a provisional invoice in the name of the foreign buyers and they have also paid the harbour duty. They also relied on a letter dt. 23rd August, 1960 written by the State Trading Corporation of India in which they had stated that they are interest only in the commission. These facts, relied on by the learned counsel for the assesses do not, in our opinion, show or establish a privity of contract between the foreign buyers and the assessees. So long as there is no privity of contract between the foreign buyers and the assessees, the transaction could not be stated to be an export sale by the assessee. On the facts therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mad. Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa clearly applies and in view of that judgment. we have to hold that the turn-over relating to the export by the State Trading Corporation of India could not be exempted as export sales in the hands of the assessees. On the facts therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mad. Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa clearly applies and in view of that judgment. we have to hold that the turn-over relating to the export by the State Trading Corporation of India could not be exempted as export sales in the hands of the assessees. But as already stated from the assessment orders or the Tribunal order we are unable to find out what is the total turnover which related to export by the State Trading Corporation of India. It is claimed that some of the exports were made prior to the channelisation through the assessee's agent N.K. Patkar and Company and in respect of the same, they are entitled to claim exemption. Though there is a reference to two contracts entered into through N.K. Patkar and company, there is no reference to the same in the Tribunal's order. Nor are we able to decide it ourselves as there are no materials on which we can decide what was the total turnover which related to the State Trading Corporation's export and what was the turnover relating to export through N.K. Patkar and company. Even the nature of the transaction through N.K. Patkar and Company is not quite clear, as the documents had not been considered by the Tribunal. We, therefore, remand the entire matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration with a direction that in these cases where the state Trading Corporation of India itself exported, it will be clearly covered by the decision Mad. Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa (supra) and therefore, not exempted; but in regard to the remaining turnover, the Tribunal will have to consider the facts a fresh and decide on merits. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for afresh consideration. 2. There will be no order as to costs.