S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Dealer aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 23-4-1994 for the assessment year 1986-87. ( 2 ) THE appellant is a registered dealer both under the Andhra Pradesh General sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short apgst Act ) as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short cst Act ). It was a dealer in the purchase and sale of cashew nuts on his own account as well as for and on behalf of non-resident principals. The dispute relates only to the assessment under the CST Act. In the assessment proceedings the assessing Officer found that the appellant purchased 2, 211 bags of cashew nuts on his own account. But as per the statement of the dealer in respect of the said purchases invoices were issued by the dealer to the non-resident principals and the entire stocks have been dispatched to the principals at Kerala or in some other State. The Assessing Officer also found that the appellant had effected sales and purchase to sri J. S. Ranganaikulu to the extent of 1,563 bags. The manner of the above sales and purchases on account of non-resident principals shows that the transactions were created to avoid Central Sales Tax. The goods were dispatched under the said transactions resulting in sales in the course of inter-State trade falling under Sec. 3 (a) of the CST Act, Therefore, the Assessing officer issued a show-cause notice and after receiving the explanation from the dealer and after hearing one of the partners of the dealer, the Assessing Officer rejected the said contention that the purchases were made as an agent on behalf of the nonresident principals and subjected the same to tax under the CST Act. This was assailed before the Appellate Deputy commissioner. Though the Appellate deputy Commissioner also suspected about the sale to Sri Ranganaikulu, but however, felt that there are other circumstances, showing the nature of the settlement of the transaction between the appellant and the non-resident principals and also observing that the purchase of goods from their account to the account of the principals are permissible transactions and therefore allowed the appeal. The Commissioner exercising the revisional powers and after issuing show-cause notice to the dealer, revised the order of the Appellate deputy Commissioner, observing that the transaction of sale in favour of ranganaikulu was only to avoid the Central sales tax. The Commissioner also took into account the way how the sales and purchases were affected by the Dealer to m/s. Ranganaikulu and vice versa. Apart from that another transaction where 352 bags bought by the dealer on his own account was transferred to the non-resident principals, as purchases on behalf of the non-resident principals. This was also treated as transaction in the course of inter-State sale and held that the entire turnover is liable to Central Sales-tax. ( 3 ) ASSAILING the above order of the commissioner, the learned Counsel for the dealer contended that the Commissioner was in error in revising the order of the appellate Deputy Commissioner. It is contended that though the dealer made purchases of cashew nuts on his own account, he can as well supply that goods, acting as an agent to the principal. There is no bar for such transfer of the stocks purchased on his own account, to the agency account of the non-resident principal. In the process there is no inter-State sale, as the appellant was only acting as an agent of non-resident principals and therefore the transactions are not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Chandramouli and Company v. State of madras wherein it was held that the assessee held two different capacities and when he transferred the goods to himself, he not only acted in that transaction as the agent of his non-resident principal, but also as a purchaser. There was nothing wrong in this dual capacity coming into play in the transaction which clearly with the definition of a sale under the Madras general Sales Tax Act. In that case the assessee was acting as an agent to a nonresident principal and also carrying on business on his own account in respect of the said goods belong to the principal. Certain goods were transferred by the assessee as an agent of the non-resident principal to his own business and in respect of that transaction it was contended that there was no sale, as there were no two parties. Certain goods were transferred by the assessee as an agent of the non-resident principal to his own business and in respect of that transaction it was contended that there was no sale, as there were no two parties. The said contention was negatived by the Madras High Court holding that the agent has got two capacities - one representing the principal and the other on his own. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Nestle s Products (India) Ltd. v. State of Orissa. In this case also the agent transferred the goods belonging to the nonresident principal to his own business and contended that there was no sale as he cannot sell to his own. The said claim was also negatived by the Orissa High Court ( 4 ) RELYING upon the above decisions, the learned Counsel contended that even assuming that the sale in favour of ranganaikulu is treated as a non-existent or fictitious transaction, still the transfer from his own account to the agent of the nonresident principal can at the most be treated intra-State sale and not inter-State sale liable to tax. The learned Counsel also referred to the term sale as defined under Sec. 2 (g) of the CST Act and hence contended that the disputed turnover is not liable to tax under the CST Act. ( 5 ) THE leaned Special Government pleader for Taxes, on the other hand, supported the order of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes. It is contended that the dealer did not produce any evidence at all showing that there was any agreement between the non-resident principal and the dealer for the supply of cashewnuts and as to the terms. The Counsel also referred to the provisions of Sec. 2 (n) of the APGST act defining the sale and contended that even if there is a transfer between the Agent and the principal, the same should be treated as a sale and if so treated the transaction of supply of cashewnuts by the appellant to the non-resident principal would amounts to inter-State sale liable to tax under the CST Act. The learned Counsel also contended that the decisions referred and relied upon by the other side are not of any assistance to the appellant, as in all those cases the goods of the principal were sold by the agent to himself to his own business. In that case it was treated as a sale by the principal to the agent, who is carrying on the business in the goods supplied by the non-resident principal. In fact, the learned Counsel contended that in the present case the sale was effected by the dealer out of goods purchased on his own account to the non-resident principal by acting as an agent. ( 6 ) THE dispute in this appeal is whether the supply of 1563 bags and 352 bags of cashewnuts by the appellant to the nonresident principal, would amount to a sale liable to Central Sales Tax. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant purchased these two quantities of cashewnuts on his own account, but while supplying the 163 bags of cashew nuts to the non-resident principal, the sale was effected a day before they were actually supplied to the non-resident principal. The sale was effected to M/s. J. S. Rangartaikulu, within 24 hours, purchase was effected from the said dealer and the purchases were shown as if they were effected as an agent of the non-resident principal and those 1563 bags of cashewnuts were supplied to the non-resident principal. Similarly 352 bags purchased by the dealer on his own account were supplied to the non-resident principal and claimed that these two transactions are not liable to tax under the CST Act as there was no direct sale. The explanation with reference to the sales to M/s. Ranganaikulu is concerned that the non-resident principals would be suspects the quality of cashewnuts supplied by the Agents, therefore, to avoid that, the stocks were sold to M/s. Ranganaikulu and purchases were affected. The said explanation dearly shows that they are not real transactions and only a make believe transactions, even according to the version of the appellant. If once the said sales in favour of M/s. Ranganaikulu were treated as not sales, then the inference is that there is a sale by the appellant to the non-resident principal. The said explanation dearly shows that they are not real transactions and only a make believe transactions, even according to the version of the appellant. If once the said sales in favour of M/s. Ranganaikulu were treated as not sales, then the inference is that there is a sale by the appellant to the non-resident principal. The claim is that the cashewnuts purchased on his own account were transferred to the agent s accounts and supplied to the non-resident principals. Even assuming that there is a transaction from his own account to the agent s account from which they are supplied to the principal, the same would amount to a transfer and the said transfer is by the appellant from out of his own stocks to the account of the agency of non-resident principal, would be an intrastate sale, hence not liable to tax. We are unable to accept the said claim. The said transaction clearly amounts to a transfer which had resulted in the movement of goods from this State to another State. The supply of cashew nuts to the non-resident principals is not in dispute. But what was contended by the learned counsel for the dealer is that though the stocks were purchased on its own account, the same can be transferred to the agency account and such transfer would not result in sale. It could be treated as supplies to a non-resident without there being a transfer. We are unable to appreciate the said contention of the learned Counsel. In fact, the sales effected by the dealer in favour of m/s. Ranganaikulu and within 24 hours the purchases were effected by the appellant as the agent of the non-resident principal so as to create as if the purchases were made only as an agent to the non-resident, so as to avoid the Central Sales tax payable by the dealer. Even with reference to 352 bags of cashew nuts purchased on its own account, they were transferred to the non-resident principals. The said transaction could only be considered as a sale in the course of inter-State sale. In fact at the time of hearing the learned Counsel contended that even if the transaction between the dealer in respect of the stocks purchased on his own account to himself as an agent treated as a sale, it could be treated only as an intra-State sale and not inter-State sale. In fact at the time of hearing the learned Counsel contended that even if the transaction between the dealer in respect of the stocks purchased on his own account to himself as an agent treated as a sale, it could be treated only as an intra-State sale and not inter-State sale. But we are unable to accept the said contention of the learned Counsel, ass the appellant was acting as an agent of a non-resident principal and if there is a transaction, the transaction is between the non-resident principal and the appellant. Though the appellant had twin capacities, as owner of the goods sold as well as an agent of the non-resident principal purchaser, such a transaction is only an inter-State sale, as it has resulted in the moment of goods to from one State to another and therefore liable to tax under the Central Sales tax Act. ( 8 ) IF the contention of the learned counsel that the conversion of the stock, which was purchased by the appellant on his own account, to that of the purchases made on behalf of the non-resident principals, the same would result in evasion of tax liable under the CST Act, as it would always be convenient for the dealer who purchases goods on their own account while selling to the non-resident principals to claim that they are the agent of the nonresident principals and thus avoiding the liability to tax. The learned Counsel strongly relied upon the findings of the appellate Deputy Commissioner that the payments were settled through the patties maintained or supplied by the dealer to the non-resident principals and therefore it is not a transaction of sale but only a purchase on behalf of the non-resident principal and therefore the transaction would not result in the inter-State sale and there is no liability under the CST Act. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is undisputed that the petitioner had purchased the stocks supplied to the non-resident principal on its own account and there is no evidence even to show that there was an agreement between the appellant and the non-resident principal for the supply of cashew nuts. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is undisputed that the petitioner had purchased the stocks supplied to the non-resident principal on its own account and there is no evidence even to show that there was an agreement between the appellant and the non-resident principal for the supply of cashew nuts. In any case, as admittedly the purchases were effected on its own account, if such stocks are supplied to the non-resident principals acting as an agent, the same would result in transfer of the goods in the course of inter-State sale and liable to Central Sales Tax. To make it further clear that the goods purchased by the appellant as dealer was transferred to the agency account which was maintained on behalf of the non-resident principals and the same resulted in the movement of the goods to the place of non-resident principals. In the process the transfer is from the local dealer to the non-resident dealer through its agent. Thus the present case is a converse case to that of the reported case of the Madras High court in the case of Chandramouli and company (1 supra) as well as Nestle Products (India) Ltd. (2 supra ). Therefore, the commissioner of Commercial Taxes is justified in revising the order of the appellate Deputy Commissioner. ( 9 ) UNDER the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the special Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.