Judgment :- RAMASWAMI, J. Though the assessees in these two tax revision cases are different, the point involved is the same. In respect of the disputed turnover, the assessees claimed that the turnover related to sales in the course of export. The assessees contended that the turnover related to sales effected through local exporting agents and that, in law, there was no sale to the local agent and that the assessees themselves should be deemed to be the exporters. Though the assessing officer rejected this contention, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that the transaction could be either a sale to an agent or a sale through an agent and, only in the case of a sale to an agent, who then exported, that the transaction could be stated to be a local sale and not in the case where the sale was through an agent, in which case, the agent was acting on behalf of the assessee and the export shall be deemed to have been made by the assessee himself. Since the assessing officer had not kept the distinction between a local sale to an exporting agent and an export sale through an agent, he set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration on merits. But, on appeal, the Tribunal thought that there is no distinction between a sale to an agent and a sale through an agent and that, therefore, the entire turnover is exempt as sales in the course of export. The disposal by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is not satisfactory. If the contention of the assessees is that they were the exporters in fact and any other person was acting only as their agent the privity of contract between the assessees and the foreign exporter would be established and the assessees themselves could become an exporter. But if the facts were to be that the contract was entered into by the agent on his own right and not as an agent of the assessees, there shall be deemed to be a sale by the assessees to the agent and there would be no privity of contract between the assessees and the foreign buyer and it would amount to a case of sale for export to a local agent. The Tribunal will have, therefore, to analyse each transaction and come to a conclusion whether the export sale was by the assessees or by the agent in his own right. The Tribunal did not also have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa which came much later than its order. The Tribunal will now dispose of the cases on merits and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa The tax revision cases are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above. But there will be no order as to costs.