JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in both these tax revision cases. The respondent is the same assessee, in both the cases. The revisions relate to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80. The Revenue prays for revising the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the above two years dated 18th December, 1986. The respondent/assessee is a dealer in arecanut. The respondent is also making purchases of arecanuts on behalf of non-resident principals. During the relevant years, the respondent/assessee received kadai commission and mahima on commission sales. These amounts, so received by the respondent/assessee, were included in the taxable turnover. Reversing the decision of the assessing authority and that of the first appellate authority, the Appellate Tribunal held that the collections under commission and mahima made after the purchase is effected and despatched to the non-resident principals, cannot be included in the taxable turnover of the respondent/assessee. In these two revisions, the Revenue objects the said view taken by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the common order dated 18th December, 1986. 2. We heard counsel. It is fairly clear that the respondent/assessee was doing business in arecanut on its own and as a commission agent of non-resident principals. The respondent/assessee purchased the goods and despatched them to the non-resident principals. Arecanut is liable to be taxed in the State on the last purchase point. As soon as the purchases were made and despatched to the non-resident principals, the deal by the assessee was complete. The purchase price was also paid. Any amount received by the assessee as kadai commission and mahima, after the purchases are over, cannot form part of the purchase turnover of the arecanuts exigible to tax at the hands of the respondent/assessee. The Appellate Tribunal has held so, in these two cases. The Appellate Tribunal found that for the earlier assessment year 1978-79, in the case of the same assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax held so in the order dated 24th November, 1980. It was positively found that the collections under commission and mahima were received by the assessee after the purchases were over and they cannot form part of the purchase turnover. A Bench of this Court has taken the same view, in T.R.C. Nos. It was positively found that the collections under commission and mahima were received by the assessee after the purchases were over and they cannot form part of the purchase turnover. A Bench of this Court has taken the same view, in T.R.C. Nos. 127 to 130 of 1989, by judgment dated 26th October, 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath [1991] 81 STC 63). 3. Following the earlier decision of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 127 to 130 of 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath [1991] 81 STC 63), we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law, and that the order sought to be revised does not merit interference. 4. The above tax revision cases are without merit. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.