JUDGMENT B.N. KIRPAL, J. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following three questions of law to this Court : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the supplies of vanaspati effected by the assessee in favour of the Canteen Stores Department did not constitute inter-State sales but were local sales and therefore exempt from exigibility of sales tax under rule 29(iii) and (iv) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sales were in any case exempt from the levy of sales tax under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the notified authority was not justified to have recourse to review proceedings and review the assessment order of its predecessor ? In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, assessment was completed by the assessing authority under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the course of its assessment, sales worth Rs. 34,42,514.06 had been found to have been made by the dealer of vanaspati to Canteen Stores Department (India), Ministry of Defence. The contention of the dealer was that these were local sales and were, therefore, exempt under rule 29(iii) and (iv) as framed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Union Territory of Delhi. These provisions envisaged that sales to the Ministry of Defence of goods for official use and sales of canteen stores to Canteen Stores Department (India) were exempt from the levy of sales tax under the local law. After the said assessment was completed, and exemption of aforesaid sale was allowed, the subsequent Sales Tax Officer felt that these were inter-State sales and not local sales and took recourse to review proceedings and after hearing the dealer, held that 50 per cent of these sales were exigible to Central sales tax. This decision was upheld in appeal by the Additional Commissioner. This decision was upheld in appeal by the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal in the said appeal referred to an earlier decision in the case of Essex Farms (P.) Ltd. In that case meat had been supplied to the Ministry of Defence and the terms of the contract of Essex Farms for the supply of meat were identical to the terms of contract of the supply of vanaspati by the dealer in the instant case. In Essex Farms' case the Tribunal in its decision reported as 17 DSTC 63 came to the conclusion that the sales were not in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, and secondly the dealer was entitled to the benefit of the said rule 29(iii) and (iv) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951. Following the decision of the Essex Farms case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the dealer. On an application being filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the aforesaid three questions of law have been referred to this Court. The most important question is question No. (i) in the present case. It is agreed that if the said question is answered in favour of the dealer, the other two questions need not be answered. As already noted, the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal in favour of the dealer, had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Essex Farms. After the decision of the Tribunal in Essex Farms, reference has been made to this Court being S.T.R. No. 38 of 1978. The two questions of law which were raised in that case were whether the sales made by Essex Farms constituted inter-State sales or not, and secondly, whether Essex Farms was entitled to exemption under rule 29(iii) of Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951. Vide our judgment dated 18th July, 1991 ([1992] 85 STC 81 (Delhi)) both the questions of law were decided in favour of the dealer, namely, Essex Farms (P.) Ltd. It was held by this Court, on an examination of the terms of contract, that the sales in question were local sales, and secondly the exemption under sub-rule (iii) of rule 29 was admissible. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court had applied the ratio of the decision of the case reported as [1981] 48 STC 351 (Delhi) (Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court had applied the ratio of the decision of the case reported as [1981] 48 STC 351 (Delhi) (Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported as [1976] 37 STC 207 (Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa). The facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the aforesaid Essex Farms case. The only difference is that the goods in which the dealer was dealing in Essex Farms case was meat while in the present case, the goods are vanaspati. The terms of the contract of sale between the dealer and the Ministry of Defence are identical. Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision dated 18th July, 1991 ([1992] 85 STC 81 (Delhi)) in Sales Tax Reference No. 38 of 1978, (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Essex Farms (P) Ltd.) we answer question No. (i) in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. In view of our answer to this question, question Nos. (ii) and (iii) have become academic and need not be answered. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Question No. 1 answered in the affirmative. Question Nos. 2 and 3 not answered.