JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in this batch of five cases. The respondent is the same person, an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Identical question arises for consideration in the five revisions. The matter relates to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89. The respondent-assessee is a fireworks manufacturer and exhibitor. He displayed fireworks during the relevant years. The assessing authority held that the display of fireworks amounted to sale and levied sales tax on the estimated turnover of fireworks for all the five years. In appeals, the first appellate authority found that the display of fireworks would not form part of assessable turnover, for the purposes of sales tax. The Revenue filed second appeals from the aforesaid order passed by the first appellate authority before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal held that the order form evidences a contract for fireworks display. It was further held that in the display of fireworks, no transfer of property takes place, as the explosives are burnt up in the process of execution of work. Following the Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Pest Control India Ltd. v. Union of India [1989] 75 STC 188, the Appellate Tribunal held that the goods did not exist and so, there is no question of transfer of property in goods in any form. The common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for all the five years is dated May 17, 1991. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the Revenue has come up in revisions. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. 3. It was argued that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the amount received by the assessee is for display of fireworks. It was further argued that even so, the Appellate Tribunal should have held that transfer of property takes place in the display of fireworks and so, the total amount, for which there was display of fireworks, constituted taxable turnover. 4. We are unable to accept the above pleas. The Appellate Tribunal has found that the order form evidences a contract for display of fireworks. It largely turned on facts. 4. We are unable to accept the above pleas. The Appellate Tribunal has found that the order form evidences a contract for display of fireworks. It largely turned on facts. It has not been shown that the said finding is not based on any material or that there is any misconstruction or misunderstanding of the order form. So, we hold that the contract was for the display of fireworks. The only further question is whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no transfer of property takes place in the display of fireworks. As the explosives are consumed, nothing tangible remains, in which property could be transferred. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the display of fireworks, the explosives are spent and do not remain, once the display takes place. In the process of execution of the work, the goods themselves (explosives) ceased to exist. No tangible property remains. So, there could be no transfer of property. We concur with the decision of the Patna High Court in Pest Control India Ltd. v. Union of India [1989] 75 STC 188. There can be no transfer of property unless the goods themselves exist. That is not the case herein. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal taking the said view is justified in law. 5. The common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated May 17, 1991, does not merit interference in revisions. The revisions are dismissed, in limine. Petitions dismissed.