JUDGMENT M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. - The appellant is an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation. He runs a petrol bunk at Dharwad and sells petrol and petroleum products supplied by his principal - the Indian Oil Corporation. He also deals in grocery and other general merchandise articles, popularly known as "kirana" transactions in that area. For the assessment year 1981-82 (Deepavali year), he returned a total turnover of Rs. 1,09,629.90 claiming exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 1,09,38,322.80 relating to trading in petroleum products. The assessing authority held that in terms of the agreement the appellant had with the Indian Oil Corporation, the sales of petroleum products had already suffered tax and, therefore, be exempted the turnover from tax. He brought to tax the sale of kerosene in view of a decision of this Court, amounting to Rs. 44,52,410 at Rs. 22,262.05 up to April 16, 1982 after which kerosene came to be exempted from payment of tax. Therefore, he issued a proposition notice bringing to tax the said turnover. The appellant, aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Hubli, who, relying upon certain terms of the agreement between the appellant and the Indian Oil Corporation and also relying upon some decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, allowed the appeal. Thereafterwards, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, by his order dated September 23, 1985, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and restored that of the assessing authority, inter alia, on the ground that the ownership of the goods supplied by the principal - the Indian Oil Corporation to the appellant, had passed on to the appellant under the relevant clauses of the agreement; that the appellant was not acting as an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation and as such, he having purchased the petroleum products from the Indian Oil Corporation, his sale of those products was bound to be an independent sale notwithstanding the fact that it had suffered tax under section 5(3) of the Act when the same was sold to him under the agreement by his principal. Therefore, the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the turnover of the appellant in petroleum products is exempt from tax, as he was acting only as an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. Therefore, the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the turnover of the appellant in petroleum products is exempt from tax, as he was acting only as an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. We do not think we should accede to that contention. As stated by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the course of his order, certain clauses in the agreement between the appellant and the Indian Oil Corporation clearly established that it was not mere agency to sell the petroleum products on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation, but the agent was allowed to purchase the products from the Indian Oil Corporation and then resell the same in the open market through his petrol-bunk and other means. Therefore, his sale transactions constituted independent turnover under section 5(1) of the Act and as such was liable to tax. We do not, therefore, think that the Commissioner was incorrect in exercising his suo motu revisional jurisdiction as a large turnover on which sales the appellant had collected sales tax from his customers should not have been allowed as exempted turnover. There was not only error in the order of the appellate authority, but it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes correctly exercised his jurisdiction to revise the order and bring to tax what had been allowed as exempted from payment of tax. There is no merit in this appeal. We dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.