JUDGMENT R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Davangere Zone, passed in exercise of his powers under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. 2. The appellant is the proprietor of "Balaji Bar" at Chitradurga, holding a CL-9 licence issued under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968. The appellant is also a CL-1 licensee at Chitradurga under the said Rules, under the name and style of Shanthi Enterprises of which he is the sole proprietor. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act", for short). According to him, a branch certificate has been issued by the Commercial Tax Department according to which Shanthi Enterprises had a branch where the business of "Balaji Bar" was carried on. 3. In regard to the assessment period 1990-91, the assessing authority passed an order of assessment dated February 25, 1992, determining the total turnover as Rs. 70,54,840 and the taxable turnover under section 5(3C) as Rs. 15,00,000 and under section 5(1A) as Rs. 12,85,500. While so doing, the assessing authority accepted the claim of the appellant that he was carrying on business as CL-1 licence holder under the name of Shanthi Enterprises and as a CL-9 licensee under the name of Balaji Bar and that the transfers effected by him as a CL-1 licensee from the business premises of Shanthi Enterprises to his business premises of Balaji Bar would amount to branch transfer from head office to branch and would not amount to sale. 4. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Davangere (Revisional authority), initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the said order vide notice dated November 10, 1993, and subsequently passed the order dated September 1, 1994 challenged in this appeal. The revisional authority has treated the transactions which were accepted by the assessing authority as branch transfers, as sales by a CL-1 licensee to a CL-9 licensee. He has also added Rs. 2,25,000 to the taxable turnover towards sale of food and aerated waters in the Balaji Bar. He determined the total turnover as Rs. 71,72,464, the taxable turnover under section 5(1A) as Rs. 18,70,961 and the taxable turnover under section 5(3C) as Rs. 4,12,277 and the taxable turnover relating to food as Rs. 2,00,000 and taxable turnover of aerated water as Rs. 25,000. He determined the total turnover as Rs. 71,72,464, the taxable turnover under section 5(1A) as Rs. 18,70,961 and the taxable turnover under section 5(3C) as Rs. 4,12,277 and the taxable turnover relating to food as Rs. 2,00,000 and taxable turnover of aerated water as Rs. 25,000. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant (T. Mahanthesh) is the sole proprietor of both Shanthi Enterprises which is a CL-1 licensee and Balaji Bar which is a CL-9 licensee. Obviously, there cannot be a sale from one person to himself. Merely because the appellant held two licences as required under the Karnataka Excise Act, and Rules thereunder for different capacities, it cannot be said that transfer from the premises of Shanthi Enterprises which was treated as head office, to the premises of Balaji Bar which was treated as a branch would amount to sale. Hence the revisional authority has erred in adding the turnover relating to the transfer of stock from the head office of the appellant to the branch office of the appellant as sales instead of stock transfers. 6. In regard to the addition of Rs. 2,25,000 to the taxable turnover on account of sale of food and aerated waters, it is seen that there is no factual or other circumstantial evidence for adding such an amount to the turnover, the revisional authority has assumed that the appellant would have sold food and aerated water in the CL-9 premises as the form of CL-9 licence provides that in a premises having a CL-9 licence, the sale of liquor is accompanied by consumption of food. The revisional authority has inferred that the appellant would not have violated the said term of the CL-9 licence and consequently inferred that the appellant had failed to declare the turnover relating to food and aerated water in his return. There is no basis for such an assumption in revisional proceeding, in the absence of any proof. It is possible that the appellant might not have sold any food at all. Such failure to sell food items may amount to a violation of CL-9 licence. If the appellant had violated the provisions of condition 7 of CL-9 licence, it is for the excise authorities to take action against him for such violation. It is possible that the appellant might not have sold any food at all. Such failure to sell food items may amount to a violation of CL-9 licence. If the appellant had violated the provisions of condition 7 of CL-9 licence, it is for the excise authorities to take action against him for such violation. Merely because under CL-9 licence sale of liquor is limited with supply of meals and refreshment, the revisional authority in the absence of any proof, could not have assumed that the appellant was in fact serving food and aerated water along with liquor, of a value of Rs. 2,25,000. As there is no basis for inclusion of Rs. 2,25,000 to the taxable turnover, the same is liable to be interfered with. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the order of the revisional authority is set aside and the order of the appellate authority is restored. Appeal allowed.