JUDGMENT K. P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, J. - Petitioner is an assessee to sales tax. He is a dealer and exporter of lemon-grass oil. For the year 1976-77 he filed a sales tax return showing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 94,42,566 and Rs. 3,69,106. Lemon-grass is an item taxable at the last purchase point in this State. Petitioner claimed exemption under three heads : 1. A turnover of Rs. 63,99,235 being the purchase value of 1,14,620 kilograms of lemon-grass oil sold to registered dealers in the State and covered by form 25 declaration. 2. A turnover of Rs. 15,41,067 being purchases made in Karnataka State and used for export, and 3. Rs. 10,77,982 being purchase turnover of 19,308.200 kilograms of lemon-grass oil exported. The assessing authority completed the assessment denying the claims under all the heads. In respect of local sales the assessing authority fixed the purchase value by deducting 2 per cent of the gross profit from the sale value. In respect of the claim for exemption relating to purchase from Karnataka State, the exemption was limited to Rs. 15,27,067 which is the turnover of lemon-grass oil transported to Kerala. Regarding the third claim the assessing authority held that it was not proved that the purchases were made to satisfy specific export orders and there is variation in the citral content of the lemon-grass oil purchased and exported. The assessee appealed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam. The appellate authority held that the purchase value for granting exemption on the local sales would be limited to the sale figures since the trading results showed a gross loss. Regarding the purchase of lemon-grass oil from Karnataka State the authority held that the differences between the total purchase value and that transported to Kerala has to be treated as closing stock and exempted. The appellant was found eligible for the exemption claimed under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Against this order the Revenue filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. By order dated September 27, 1991, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the department. The Tribunal is of the view that the rate of gross profit adopted by the assessing authority is reasonable and for this reason the interference by the first appellate authority was held to be unwarranted. By order dated September 27, 1991, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the department. The Tribunal is of the view that the rate of gross profit adopted by the assessing authority is reasonable and for this reason the interference by the first appellate authority was held to be unwarranted. Regarding the exemption on purchases made from Karnataka State the decision of the assessing authority to limit the exemption to the figure adopted for the Karnataka assessment was held to be fair and reasonable. Regarding the claim for exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal modified the order of the appellate authority and held that the exemption is allowable only for purchases effected with effect from April 1, 1976, the date from which sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act has come into force. The Tribunal directed that only those purchases and sales effected on or after April 1, 1976, will be treated as purchase or sale in the course of export. This order of the Appellate Tribunal is assailed by the assessee in this revision. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 3. The questions of law raised for decision by this Court are formulated in paragraph 6 of the revision memorandum. They are : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the purchase turnover of local sales covered by form 25 declarations will be fixed by deducting 2 per cent gross profit from sale value as against the claim for taking the average purchase value ? 2. In view of the gross loss whether the Tribunal is right in deducting 2 per cent gross profit from the sale value to fix the purchase turnover for granting exemption ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that exemption will not be granted to the total purchase turnover in Karnataka but will be limited to the turnover of lemon-grass oil transported to Kerala ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that exemption for exports made after April 1, 1976, will be available if only the purchase for export is made after April 1, 1976 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that exemption for exports made after April 1, 1976, will be available if only the purchase for export is made after April 1, 1976 ? Questions 1 and 2 : 4. The assessee has not maintained separate accounts for purchase of lemon-grass oil sold locally and the oil sold inter-State and oil exported. It was for this reason that the assessing authority determined the purchase turnover of lemon-grass oil sold locally on the basis of the local sale value. While doing so, the authority has deducted 2 per cent towards gross profit from the sale value and determined the purchase turnover. The appellate authority has limited the exemption to the extent of the actual sale value as revealed from the accounts for the reason that the trading results showed a gross loss. It is for this reason that the authority observed that there is no justification in deducting 2 per cent of the gross profit from the sale value to arrive at the purchase value. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter and held that the rate adopted by the assessing authority seems to be reasonable in the absence of proper books of accounts. The assessing authority has referred to the failure on the part of the assessee to maintain separate accounts for purchase of lemon-grass oil sold locally and that sold inter-State and exported. In the circumstances the assessing authority was left with no choice but to determine the purchase turnover of lemon-grass oil sold locally. Proper reasons have been given by the Appellate Tribunal to uphold the method of assessment by the assessing authority. We see no error in the reasoning or the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal on this aspect. Question No. 3 : 5. The assessee had claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 15,41,067.03 whereas the assessing authority has limited the claim to the figure adopted in completing the assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on the branch office of the appellant, i.e., on Rs. 15,27,067.03. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that the appellate authority was wrong in allowing the claim of the assessee and treating the difference as closing stock in the absence of any evidence before it. 15,27,067.03. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that the appellate authority was wrong in allowing the claim of the assessee and treating the difference as closing stock in the absence of any evidence before it. As per the assessment made on the branch office of the assessee at Karnataka, the value of the lemon-grass oil transferred to Alleppey is only Rs. 15,27,067.03. It is also mentioned that the assessee has not produced any evidence before the appellate authority to enable the assessee to claim exemption on a turnover of Rs. 15,41,067,03. The Tribunal was therefore right in holding that the decision of the assessing authority to limit the exemption to the figure adopted to the Karnataka assessment is fair and reasonable. Question No. 4 : 6. Exemption was claimed by the assessee under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This was disallowed by the assessing authority for the reason that the assessee was holding huge stock of lemon-grass at the time of receipt of the export order. The discrepancy between the citral content as per the export order and the oil actually exported was also referred to by the assessing authority. The appellate authority, after referring to the various contracts entered into by the assessee for export of lemon-grass oil, held that the assessee is eligible for exemption claimed under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal while agreeing with this view of the appellate authority limited the benefit of the exemption to the purchases effected from April 1, 1976, the date from which sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act has come into force. The grievance of revision-petitioner is that the Tribunal is not justified in limiting the exemption to the purchases effected after April 1, 1976. It is contended that the assessee had entered into contracts for export of lemon-grass and the purchases were made in the course of the export of the goods. That revision-petitioner had entered into contracts with foreign buyers is not disputed. For the purpose of export the assessee had purchased lemon-grass. The claim for exemption is seen made by the assessee under sub-section (3) of section 5 introduced by the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act in 1976. That sub-section came into force with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976. For the purpose of export the assessee had purchased lemon-grass. The claim for exemption is seen made by the assessee under sub-section (3) of section 5 introduced by the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act in 1976. That sub-section came into force with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976. The last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export if such last sale or purchase took place after and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. In order to claim the benefits of this sub-section three conditions are to be fulfilled. They are : i. The transaction of such sale or purchase takes place after the agreement or order received by the exporter from his foreign buyer. ii. The last purchase must have taken place after the agreement with the foreign buyer was entered into, and iii. The transaction of such last sale or purchase was entered into for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order received by the exporter from his foreign buyer. 7. Even before the assessing authority the contracts entered into with the foreign buyer were produced. The assessing authority denied the benefits of the exemption granted under sub-section (3) of section 5 for the reason that the sub-section had come into operation only with effect from April 1, 1976. In respect of one of the contracts which was entered into on January 15, 1976, the assessee had started purchase from March 16, 1976. Still the benefits were denied for the reason that the purchase must invariably be effected after April 1, 1976, in order to get the reliefs under the sub-section. The assessee having failed to prove that the entire quantity inspected on April 5, 1976, for export was purchased between April 1, 1976 and April 5, 1976, the benefits of the sub-section were denied to the assessee. Regarding the contracts entered into on subsequent dates, the assessing authority is of the opinion that huge stock of lemon-grass was available at the hands of the assessee at the time of receipt of the contract. Regarding the contracts entered into on subsequent dates, the assessing authority is of the opinion that huge stock of lemon-grass was available at the hands of the assessee at the time of receipt of the contract. There was no conclusive proof that the purchases effected are to satisfy the foreign buyers' order or to show that the export effected was exclusively from the purchases effected after the receipt of the order. The assessing authority mentioned about the non-production of the correspondence file relating to the contracts. In the result the relief claimed under section 5(3) was found not admissible. The appellate authority reversed that finding and held that the conditions required under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act are fully satisfied. The assessee was found eligible for the exemption claimed under that sub-section. The Appellate Tribunal while agreeing with some of the views of the appellate authority restricted the claim of exemption to purchases effected after April 1, 1976. This is seen to have been made for the reason that sub-section (3) was introduced only with effect from April 1, 1976 and the exemption under that section can be claimed only in respect of the purchases effected on and after that date. Since revision-petitioner had claimed only the benefits of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, he has to comply with the conditions embodied therein. Exemption can be claimed if the last sale or purchase took place after and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to export. Since the sub-section was introduced with effect from April 1, 1976, the last sale or purchase contemplated under sub-section (3) can only be the last sale or purchase which took place on and after April 1, 1976. The Tribunal was therefore right in holding that only those purchases and sales effected on and after April 1, 1976, will be treated as purchases or sales in the course of export. The assessee was rightly held entitled for exemption in respect of purchases of lemon-grass oil effected on or after April 1, 1976. No error was committed by the Tribunal in holding so. For the reasons aforementioned the revision is found to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.