JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The State is the revision petitioner. The assessee is the respondent. The assessment years concerned are 1983-84 and 1984-85. The respondent - assessee is engaged, inter alia, in the export of marine products. The assessments for the two years under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") were completed on July 30, 1994 and August 31, 1994 respectively. In the said assessments the claim for exemption on the purchase turnover of shrimps amounting to Rs. 64,70,403 and Rs. 2,05,08,630 respectively under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was denied on the ground that the assessee's sale to the export house was the penultimate sale which occasioned the export. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed separate appeals before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam. The Deputy Commissioner by separate orders dated January 30, 1995 and March 10, 1995 respectively set aside the two assessment orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for verifying whether the purchases of prawns took place after and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export and as to whether the assessee had satisfied all the conditions of section 5(3) of the Act. Not being satisfied with the order of the first appellate authority the assessee took up the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of both the appeals by a common order dated November 21, 1995 allowing the claim made by the assessee under section 5(3) of the CST Act. These two revisions at the instance of the State are against the said common order of the Tribunal. The only question that arises for consideration in these two revisions is regarding the correctness of the order of the Tribunal granting the claim of the assessee for exemption made under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act for the aforesaid two years. The State has raised the following questions of law for decision : "(a) Is the Tribunal under the facts and circumstances in case, justified in excluding the purchase turnover of prawns from exigibility to tax taking shelter under section 5(1) of the CST Act ? The State has raised the following questions of law for decision : "(a) Is the Tribunal under the facts and circumstances in case, justified in excluding the purchase turnover of prawns from exigibility to tax taking shelter under section 5(1) of the CST Act ? (b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that sale has been effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India ?" The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the issue as summarized by the Tribunal are as follows : "The appellants are registered exporters. They undertake exports of marine products. The exports are undertaken in terms of agreements that the appellants have entered into with export houses. The agreements are executed in writing between the appellants and the export houses. The foreign orders are procured through the export houses. Prices are negotiated by the export houses. The foreign buyers open irrevocable and transferable letters of credit in the name of the export houses. The appellants name is marked in the foreign order as the shipper. The appellants procure the materials, process and pack it, takes to Cochin port, clear the customs checking, load the goods on board the ship. The sales invoices are raised by the appellants against the foreign buyers and the bill of lading is obtained in the name of the appellants. Packing credit advance available to the exporters is availed by the appellants from the bank. All the cost and expenses including freight and insurance are paid by the appellants. Export duty if any is paid by the appellants. The incentives available to exporters like duty drawback, cash assistance, etc., are paid to the appellants by the concerned agencies of the Central Government. After the shipment, the documents are transferred to the export house. In all the export documents, the name of the concerned export house is endorsed with a prefix 'account'. The export house negotiates the export documents with the bank. The letter of credit is endorsed in favour of the appellants by directing the bank to credit the export proceeds in foreign exchange to the account of the appellants in the bank designated by the appellants. The export house negotiates the export documents with the bank. The letter of credit is endorsed in favour of the appellants by directing the bank to credit the export proceeds in foreign exchange to the account of the appellants in the bank designated by the appellants. The REP licences/additional licences for which the appellants are entitled on account of the exports undertaken by them are transferred to the export houses with a disclaimer letter addressed to the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Exports. In turn, the export houses make a payment of 20 per cent of the F.O.B. value of the exports to the appellants as premium of the REP licence transferred by them." The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the assessee is not entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax made under section 5(3) of the CST Act for the reason that the assessee had not satisfied all the conditions stipulated in the said sub-section. The Government Pleader submitted that since the assessee is not the exporter of the goods purchased by it locally and since the assessee did not have any foreign contract for export of shrimps the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 5(3). The Government Pleader submitted that the export house is the exporter and the purchase of shrimps effected by the assessee acquired the quality of last purchase by the sale effected by it to the export house. The Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal had in fact considered the question only under section 5(1) of the CST Act and that there was no consideration as to whether the purchase turnover of shrimps effected by the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the exports made by the assessee has satisfied all the conditions of section 5(1) and section 5(3) of the CST Act and therefore the entire purchase turnover of prawns corresponding to the exports should be exempted from the levy of tax. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the exports made by the assessee has satisfied all the conditions of section 5(1) and section 5(3) of the CST Act and therefore the entire purchase turnover of prawns corresponding to the exports should be exempted from the levy of tax. The counsel submitted that the export houses are associated with these exports only on the basis of the import-export policy of the Government of India, that individual and small exporters like the assessee would find it difficult in negotiating problems like dishonour of bills, revocation of letter of credit or rejection of goods, etc., which are common in export business; whereas accredited export houses would be in a better position to win over such problems because of their resources and contracts and that it is only with the encouragement of the Government of India that exporters like the assessee is joining hands with the export houses in matters of exports. The counsel further submitted that though the export orders are given to the export houses by name, the orders are actually given to the assessee, that the name of the assessee is shown in the purchase order itself, that letters of credit opened in the name of export houses are transferred to the assessee and the foreign exchange is directly credited to the account of the assessee and that all the costs and risks are borne by the assessee. The counsel further submitted that for the purpose of Central Excise, Customs and under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the assessee is the exporter. It is stated that the bills are prepared "on account" only for the purpose of enabling the export house to claim the REP licence, that the endorsement "account" does not have any other significance and that there is a privity of contract between the foreign buyer and the assessee and therefore the first limb of section 5(1) has been satisfied. It is also stated that the goods have been sold by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. The bill of lading was transferred to the export house when the goods are on board the ship and therefore the second limb of section 5(1) has also been satisfied. It is also stated that the goods have been sold by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. The bill of lading was transferred to the export house when the goods are on board the ship and therefore the second limb of section 5(1) has also been satisfied. The Tribunal considered the question in the light of the clauses in the agreement executed between the assessee and the export house. Clause (12) of the agreement provided that the export house shall procure the said marine products in the course of the export on board the ship outside the customs frontiers of India at the contracted price obtained by the export house against export orders and that the export house shall not be liable for any purchase/sales tax whatsoever which may come in force even on a subsequent date". The Tribunal on the basis of the said clause observed that the goods as well as the documents of title to goods were intended to be transferred on board the ship beyond the customs frontiers of India. The Tribunal then referred to section 2(ab) of the CST Act defining "crossing the customs frontiers of India" and other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and held that when the goods cross the limits of the area of a customs station, it is to be said that the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India. The Tribunal thereafter noted that the goods were taken to Cochin Port by the assessee, the goods were cleared by the customs authorities at the customs station in the Cochin Port, that the customs clearance was obtained by the assessee, that after the customs clearance, the goods were taken beyond the area of the customs station by the assessee to the ship and the goods were loaded on board the ship, that the bill of lading was obtained by the assessee in its name and therefore it is clear that by the time the assessee received the bill of lading the goods have crossed the area of the customs station at Cochin Port and thereby the customs frontiers of India. It was further observed that "the documents of title to goods belonged to the appellants till that moment and that all these documents including the bill of lading are transferred to the export house when the goods are already on board the ship beyond the customs frontiers of India. Therefore it is clear that the sale has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. The Tribunal also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in B. K. Wadeyar, Sales Tax Officer v. Daulatram Rameshwarlal [1960] 11 STC 757 and held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions laid down in the second limb of sub-section (1) and therefore it is an export within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that since the assessee is an exporter under section 5(1) of the CST Act it is entitled for exemption under section 5(3) from the levy of tax on the purchase turnover of prawns. The Tribunal thereafter observed that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has given direction to verify the satisfaction of conditions of exemption stipulated in section 5(3) but the assessing authority has not made out any such case of non-fulfilment of any conditions. It was also observed that the assessing authority has already granted exemption for the direct exports made by the assessee in the year 1983-84 on seeing that the assessee has satisfied the conditions laid down in section 5(3) and therefore the direction of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in that regard is uncalled for. The Tribunal had accordingly directed the assessing authority to exempt the purchase turnover of prawns from the levy of tax. As could be seen from the findings of the Tribunal the assessee was held to be an exporter in respect of the local purchase of prawns with respect to which exemption was claimed under section 5(3) solely on the ground that the assessee had satisfied the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act. Admittedly the assessee had effected purchase of shrimps locally. Under the Act, prawns, during the relevant period was taxable only at the point of last purchase inside the State. According to the assessee it exported the shrimps so purchased to foreign countries through export house. Admittedly the assessee had effected purchase of shrimps locally. Under the Act, prawns, during the relevant period was taxable only at the point of last purchase inside the State. According to the assessee it exported the shrimps so purchased to foreign countries through export house. Thus the liability to tax on the purchase turnover is attracted immediately when the shrimps purchased by it are exported through export house. The claim of the assessee is that though the export was made through the export house it was really an export by the assessee and therefore the purchase turnover of shrimps so exported is liable to be exempted from tax under section 5(3) of the CST Act. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows : "5. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export - (1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India; (2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 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." The scope of the provisions of sections 2(ab), 5(2) and (3) of the CST Act was considered in relation to the assessment under the KGST Act by the Supreme Court in K. Gopinathan Nair v. State of Kerala [1997] 105 STC 580. Similarly, the scope of the provisions of section 5(3) of the CST Act was considered by the Supreme Court in C.T. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1997] 104 STC 94. Though the first decision mentioned K. Gopinathan Nair v. State of Kerala [1997] 105 STC 580 (SC) was rendered in the context of section 5(2) which deals with "sale or purchase in the course of import" it has got a bearing on the interpretation of section 5(1) which deals with "sale/purchase in the course of export". The second decision C.T. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1997] 104 STC 94 (SC) directly deals with exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act. We find that the principles laid down in these two decisions have got a strong bearing on the issue involved in the present case. We note that the Tribunal has taken the view that the transaction in question falls within section 5(1) of the CST Act without considering the legal principles laid down by this court and the Supreme Court. Of course the two decisions which we have referred were not available at the time when the Tribunal decided the question. We also note that the Tribunal has taken the view that since the transaction falls within section 5(1) the case will fall under section 5(3) also. Regarding the conditions to be fulfilled under section 5(3) of the CST Act the Tribunal has simply stated that the assessing authority had no case that the conditions of section 5(3) have not been fulfilled. According to us, these approaches made by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We note that the first appellate authority has remitted the matter to the assessing authority to consider the question as to whether the assessee had satisfied the requirements of section 5(3) of the CST Act. In these circumstances we are of the view that the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act in respect of the purchase turnover of prawns effected locally has to be considered by the assessing authority as directed by the first appellate authority in accordance with law and in the light of the two decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the assessing authority for de novo consideration of the claim of the assessee made under section 5(3) of the CST Act, as mentioned above. While considering the matter certainly it is open to the assessee to place any other decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter. Since the assessments relate to the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 there will be a direction to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders as directed herein above within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These two tax revision cases are allowed to the above extent.