JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The revision-petitioner is a limited company. It is a dealer in Indian made foreign liquor and beer at S.D. Road, Ernakulam. They were agents for M/s. Herbertsons Ltd., manufacturers of Indian made foreign liquor and beer. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. The assessment was made originally to the best of judgment on March 18, 1982. The assessment was reopened under section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and an order was passed in those proceedings on June 12, 1985. Both the above assessment orders were taken in appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who disposed of the appeals by a common order dated December 6, 1985. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the inclusion of the sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee. With regard to other aspects, there was an order of remit. A revised assessment order was passed after the remit by the assessing authority on April 18, 1989. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessment order was affirmed by order dated December 13, 1989. The matter was taken in further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Two questions were posed for consideration before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first question was regarding the inclusion of the sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal held that the matter is concluded by the earlier appellate order passed in the appeals - S.T.A. Nos. 399/82 and 324/85 - dated December 6, 1985. From the said order the assessee did not file a further appeal before the Tribunal. So, the decision by the first appellate authority permitting the inclusion of the sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee stood affirmed and it cannot be assailed in proceedings against the revised assessment order. It was held that the assessee is precluded from putting forward that plea, since the decision on those aspects had become final by the appellate order passed by the first appellate authority dated December 6, 1985. The only other aspect argued before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the assessee was entitled to forwarding charges collected by it from M/s. Michaels. The only other aspect argued before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the assessee was entitled to forwarding charges collected by it from M/s. Michaels. It was pleaded that there was an agreement between the assessee and M/s. Michaels on April 1, 1989, to sell Indian made foreign liquor and beer to M/s. Michaels. The assessee had canvassed orders for M/s. Michaels and it was paid a commission therefor. The assessee had also agreed to transport goods to the customers of M/s. Michaels and on that ground it had received forwarding charges. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the agreement pleaded and also held that from the records and other statements and explanations filed by the assessee it is not evident that any services were rendered by the assessee to M/s. Michaels as pleaded. In this view of the matter, the inclusion of the forwarding charges in the taxable turnover was held justified. The Appellate Tribunal held that the forwarding charges collected by the assessee will form part of the taxable turnover. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated September 28, 1991, the assessee has come up in revision. 2. We heard counsel for the assessee/revision-petitioner as also counsel for the respondent/Revenue - Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. 3. It is common ground that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Syed Alavi v. State of Kerala [1981] 48 STC 150; 1981 KLT 548 , even though the first appellate authority had held in its order dated December 6, 1985, that the inclusions of sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee are proper, in proceedings against the revised assessment order it is open to the higher appellate authority to scrutinize the correctness of the said decision. After the remit, a revised assessment order was passed on April 18, 1989. It was affirmed in first appeal by order dated December 13, 1989. The assessee preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the second appeal, it is open to the assessee to assail the legality or correctness of the decision rendered in the earlier round by the first appellate authority, dated December 6, 1985. It was affirmed in first appeal by order dated December 13, 1989. The assessee preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the second appeal, it is open to the assessee to assail the legality or correctness of the decision rendered in the earlier round by the first appellate authority, dated December 6, 1985. In the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Syed Alavi's case [1981] 48 STC 150; 1981 KLT 548 , the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the decision of the first appellate authority, dated December 6, 1985, precluded the consideration of the matter by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal when the assessment order came up for consideration before it. On this aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal discloses an error of law. We set aside that portion of the order, contained in paragraph 4 of the proceedings dated September 28, 1991 and direct a remit of the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Regarding the only other point raised before the Appellate Tribunal, about the inclusion of the forwarding charges collected by the assessee from M/s. Michaels in the taxable turnover, the Appellate Tribunal held that the agreement pleaded by the assessee is open to question and also that the documents produced do not reveal any services having been rendered by the assessee/revision-petitioner to M/s. Michaels. In other words, the fact-finding Tribunal has found that the agreement on the basis of which the assessee put forward the said plea, is not genuine. It was also found that the records do not reveal that services were rendered by the assessee to M/s. Michaels in that regard. 5. In the light of the above findings of fact, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal, that the forwarding charges collected by the assessee will form part of its taxable turnover, is sustainable and valid in law. The second question raised before us is answered against the revision-petitioner/assessee. 6. Of the four questions formulated for decision by this Court, question No. 1 relates to the inclusion of sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee. We have remitted this matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. Of the four questions formulated for decision by this Court, question No. 1 relates to the inclusion of sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee. We have remitted this matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. Questions 2 to 4 are regarding the question as to whether the forwarding charges will form part of the taxable turnover of the assessee. On questions 2 to 4, we have already held that the agreement pleaded was found not to be genuine and no service was rendered by the assessee to M/s. Michaels. Questions 2 to 4 are answered against the assessee. All the said aspects posed for consideration are covered by our answer accepting the finding of fact entered by the Tribunal. 7. The tax revision case is allowed in part. On the first question, the matter is remitted to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed.