JUDGMENT K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J. The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The respondent is an exporter of shrimps. The only question involved, is that the shrimps purchased by the respondent and exported by him after cleaning, peeling, sorting, etc., are one and the same goods. If they are so, the assessee would be exempted from tax under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the purchase turnover of shrimps. The Revenue disputes the said claim. According to the Revenue the fresh prawns purchased by the assessee and the processed prawns exported by him are not the one and the same commodity. On the basis of this reasoning the Revenue contends that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal has held in favour of the respondent-assessee. The Revenue has come up in revision. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue Mr. Nambiar. It was submitted that this Court has held, that prawns purchased by the assessee and the processed prawns exported by him were one and the same goods and so the assessee was not liable to be taxed under section 5(3) of the Act. The decision is reported in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Neroth Oil Mills Company Ltd. [1982] 49 STC 249 (Ker). The Revenue contends that this decision is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court of India as Civil Appeal No. 2495 of 1985. So the matter is not beyond doubt or the question of law now urged is an open question. We are unable to agree. The very question posed for consideration has been adjudicated by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239; AIR 1986 SC 1809 . Indeed counsel for the Revenue did not and could not dispute this fact. The Supreme Court has held that the prawns purchased by the assessee in that case and the prawns exported are the one and same commodity notwithstanding the processes employed. The said decision squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. On this short ground we see no error in the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. No interference is called for with the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tax revision case is without merit. The said decision squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. On this short ground we see no error in the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. No interference is called for with the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.