JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - The assessee on the file of the Sales Tax Officer, Munnar, has brought before us the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, with reference to the following six questions which are urged to be questions of law or otherwise rendering the decision erroneous. We do not think so : "1. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that factually separate sale between the petitioner and the customers can be inferred ? 2. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the dealership agreement is proved with the letter dated July 9, 1991 ? 3. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 2,51,489.96 representing the value of 5 tempo vans by virtue of Explanation 5 to sub-section (xxi) of section 2 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ? Is not the aforesaid finding illegal and perverse ? 4. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in applying the ratio of the decision in Alwaye Agencies case [1988] 70 STC 107 (SC) to the facts of the case and to hold that the petitioner liable in respect of the transactions ? Is not the aforesaid decision inapplicable or at any rate distinguishable ? 5. Whether on the materials available in the case, it can be concluded that these sales by the petitioner to the five purchasers which are exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Do not the materials on records point to the contra - they are direct inter-State by Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Poona in favour of individual customers ? 6. Is not the petitioner entitled to exclude the turnover relating to the sale of 5 tempo vans in the assessment for 1976-77 ?" The assessee has headquarters at Munnar and branch office at Trivandrum. It is a dealer in automobile parts and spares. The year in question is 1976-77 and assessment in regard thereto was completed on May 28, 1979 wherein total and taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 15,00,328.83 and Rs. 9,92,990 respectively. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, scrutinised because certain turnover relating to the sale of Bajaj tempo vehicles dealt with by the assessee remained out of the process of original assessment. 15,00,328.83 and Rs. 9,92,990 respectively. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, scrutinised because certain turnover relating to the sale of Bajaj tempo vehicles dealt with by the assessee remained out of the process of original assessment. Acting under section 35 of the Act, by the order dated May 4, 1983 the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the original assessment and ordered reassessment to be done by the Sales Tax Officer, Munnar. 3. The accounts were scrutinised and a pre-assessment notice dated November 7, 1985 was served on the assessee showing addition of turnover of Rs. 2,51,489.96. This related to a transaction with reference to five Bajaj tempo vehicles. Thus the original order was revised by order dated December 31, 1985 showing this amount of Rs. 2,51,489.96 as additional turnover. This was the only question that was taken further up to the impugned order of the Tribunal as stated at the outset. 4. The contention of the petitioner-assessee which is the same as was placed before the authorities below that the sale of five tempo vans of Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, related to five individual customers in the State of Kerala. This was under direct delivery system and the assessee acted only as agent to canvass orders on behalf of Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, and not in any other manner, and, therefore consequently not assessable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It was contended that the transactions in connection with five tempo vans are transactions of inter-State sale of these vehicles by the outside company directly to individual customers in Kerala and the assessment is wrong and erroneous for the above reasons. As a corollary it is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the intervention of the assessee in question is only relatable to taking delivery of the vehicles and handing them over to the customers who were the direct purchasers from Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, with an under-standing of looking after conditions needing service at the pre-delivery stage. 5. Learned Government Pleader urged and he too reinforced submissions made before the lower authorities, to contend that the material on record presents crystal clear situation that the petitioner-assessee is regularly appointed as an authorised dealer of Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona for Matador four wheelers in the district of Trivandrum, Alleppey, Quilon and Kottayam. 5. Learned Government Pleader urged and he too reinforced submissions made before the lower authorities, to contend that the material on record presents crystal clear situation that the petitioner-assessee is regularly appointed as an authorised dealer of Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona for Matador four wheelers in the district of Trivandrum, Alleppey, Quilon and Kottayam. Reliance in support is placed in the order dated July 9, 1971 which is the communication from Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, in favour of the assessee, Messrs. Marikar Engineers Limited, Trivandrum. Learned Government Pleader submitted further that for all practical purposes the material on record shows that there are two separate and distinct transactions in point of time, the first one between Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, with the petitioner-assessee Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited and thereafter on the arrival of the vehicles within the State of Kerala between the petitioner-assessee, Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited and the individual customers which is evidenced from the very letter of appointment dated July 9, 1972 which is itself termed as agreement in proceedings and letter dated January 6, 1976 of the petitioner-assessee Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited addressed to one of the customers together with the agreement dated January 15, 1977 between the petitioner-assessee - Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited and the individual purchasers. Learned counsel sought support through the decision of the Supreme Court in Alwaye Agencies v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax [1988] 70 STC 107 dealing with the similar situation in the case of Alwaye Agencies acting as the "distributor" of certain chemicals under the agreement of a similar character and on the basis thereof the Supreme Court treating the situation that the assessee would be the purchaser of goods and not a mere agent. 6. There are several factors that are taken into consideration by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In fact as is observed by the Tribunal relationship between Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona and the petitioner-assessee company - Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited is available is clearly satisfied with sufficient particulars in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, himself. It is as follows : "The assessee-company filed their reply along with a copy of agreement executed on July 9, 1971 by Marikar Engineers, Trivandrum, with Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona. Marikar and Company Limited is available is clearly satisfied with sufficient particulars in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, himself. It is as follows : "The assessee-company filed their reply along with a copy of agreement executed on July 9, 1971 by Marikar Engineers, Trivandrum, with Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona. In their reply dated December 14, 1982 the assessee-company has also stated that though the Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, executed an agreement in the name of Marikar Engineers Limited, Trivandrum, they were never dealers in Bajaj Tempo vehicles and as per the request of the assessee-company Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona recognised the assessee-company as their authorised dealers till they terminated the agency on March 31, 1978. Further in a copy of their letter dated March 17, 1978 addressed to Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, it is stated that they were forced to relinquish their dealership of Bajaj tempo vehicles with effect from April 1, 1978." 7. Thereafter the Tribunal has also referred to the correspondence dated July 9, 1971 and has reproduced the following portion therefrom : "With reference to the discussions you had with us, we have pleasure in appointing you as our dealer for Hanseat 3 wheeler, Viking 4 wheeler (petrol driven), Matador 4 wheeler (diesel driven) vehicles and their spare parts for Trivandrum, Alleppey, Quilon, Kottayam and Kanyakumari districts on the following conditions : We would like you to deposit with us Rs. 7,000 out of which Rs. 2000 will be spare parts deposit and Rs. 5,000 against infringement claims. Now let us have your initial firm order for the first three months and inform your tentative requirements for the next three months." Bare reading of the said portion makes it clear that the petitioner-assessee was acting as a dealer, something in addition to the situation of agency. The petitioner-assessee was asked to have initial firm order for the first three months and then to inform subsequent tentative requirements for the subsequent period. 8. Thereafter the Tribunal has referred to the above decision of the apex court as well as the statutory provision - Explanation 5(a) of section 2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act to specify the statutory liability of the petitioner-assessee when the goods are transferred from a principal to his selling agent and from the selling agent to the purchaser. 9. 9. In our judgment all the aspects necessary to fix the liability have been considered by the authorities below consistently in a uniform manner. The very correspondence spells out a relationship of a transfer by Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, in favour of the petitioner-assessee because it is the petitioner-assessee who has to forward individual orders on the basis of three months advance booking. It is also available through the material on record that the petitioner-assessee gets commission out of the sales apart from the service charges and other particulars in the matter of delivery to the individual customers. We find that there is no error of law and even otherwise the decisions rendered consecutively by the three authorities could be said to be otherwise erroneous. For all these reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.