Judgment :- Paripoornan, J. The Revenue is the revision-petitioner in this batch of four cases. A common question arises for consideration in these cases. The respondents are assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. They are doing business in rubber. During the course of business, the respondents purchased rubber on their own and also on account of nonresident principals outside the State on commission basis. The sole dispute that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was and still raised before this Court is, whether the commission and inspection charges received by the respondents/ assessees from their non-resident principals in respect of the purchase of rubber made on their behalf by the assessees, will form part of the purchase turn over of rubber on account of the nonresident principals which is liable to be taxed at the hands of the assessees. It was held to be so includable by the assessing authority. In appeals, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that the commission and quality inspection charges will not form part of the purchase turnover of rubber liable to tax at the hands of the assessees. The Revenue took up the matter in appeals before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the said decision and held that the commission and quality inspection charges received by the assessees will not form part of the purchase turnover of rubber assessable in the hands of the assessees. It is thereafter, the Revenue has come up in this batch of four revisions. 2. We heard counsel The order passed in T.A.No.878 of 1986 dated 5th October, 1988 was taken to be the representative one covering all the cases. In the said case, the Appellate Tribunal found that the purchase price of the goods purchased by the assessee /respondent on behalf of their non-resident principal is the same as in the bought notes. It was also found that the statement sent by the respondent/ assessee to the principal separately contains commission and inspection charges due to the assessee/ respondent. It is true that the commission payable to the respondent/ assessee by the nonresident principal is geared to the quantum of purchases effected. The Tribunal held that the purchase cost of the goods remains the same both for the assessee and for the foreign principal. It is true that the commission payable to the respondent/ assessee by the nonresident principal is geared to the quantum of purchases effected. The Tribunal held that the purchase cost of the goods remains the same both for the assessee and for the foreign principal. In the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, commission and inspection charges were never shown in the trading account. They were displayed only as part of the profit and loss account as a credit entry after arriving at gross profit. This clearly demonstrates that the assessee and the foreign principal have treated this item quite distinctly and differently from the purchase account. Adverting to the above facts, the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal held that the definition of the word "turnover" occurring in S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act means that the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer. As per section 2(xxvi) of the Act, "total turnover" means the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer at all places of business in the State. 3. In the light of the above definitions and in the light of the particular facts discernible in these cases, the Tribunal held that the transaction was complete while charging the cost as per the bought notes. The commission and other inspection charges made subsequently was never tagged on to the purchase cost and so, such commission payments and inspection charges incurred after the purchase and not along with the purchases, can never be part of the purchase price., 4. We are of the view that the above finding and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal are in accord with the unreported Bench decision of this Court in T.R.C.Nos.127 to 130 of 1989 dated 26-10-1989. One of us was a party to the said decision. In para.3 of the judgment, it was held as follows: "The goods dealt with by the assessee arc liable to be taxed in the State at the last purchase point. The assessee purchased the goods and they sent these goods to their non-resident principals. By sending the goods to the non-resident principals, the purchase by the assessee was complete. The purchase price was also paid. Any Commission received by the assessee from the principals after the purchases are over, cannot form part of the purchase turnover of the assessee " 5. By sending the goods to the non-resident principals, the purchase by the assessee was complete. The purchase price was also paid. Any Commission received by the assessee from the principals after the purchases are over, cannot form part of the purchase turnover of the assessee " 5. In the light of the above Bench decision, we arc of the view that the Appellate. Tribunal was justified in these cases in holding that the commission and quality inspection charges received by the assessee from their non-resident principals will not form part of the purchase turnover of rubber which is liable to be taxed at the hands of the assessees. 6. The Tax Revision Cases are without merit. They are dismissed. Dated this the 12th day of September, 1990.