ORDER This reference under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 arises out of an order dated December 14, 1983 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax ("Tribunal") in Appeal Nos. 8 and 9/STT/83. The following questions of law have been referred for our opinion : 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales were in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the ratio decidendi in Mod. Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC) was not applicable to the case of the respondent - dealer ? We have gone through the paper book with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The assessee was exporting shoes to USSR through the State Trading Corporation (for short, "STC"). During the course of export, all necessary documents were submitted to STC through Dena Bank after the goods had entered the export stream. The Tribunal referred to a decision in the case of Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore v. Salem Magnesite (P.) Ltd. [1978] 42 STC 285 (Mad) that it would normally take 1 1/2 or 2 hours for a ship to cross the territorial waters of India. Proceeding on this basis, the Tribunal concluded, on the basis of the material on record, that since the payments were made only after the goods had crossed the territorial waters of India, the transaction of sale in favour of STC would be deemed to have been taken in the high seas and in the exportation stream. As regards goods sent by air, more or less the same procedure was followed and the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the payment would have been made to STC only after the goods had left the customs frontiers of India by an aircraft. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 136 wherein it has been held that integrated transactions could not by themselves occasion the sale in the course of export of goods. In Mohd. Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC), the assessee was not able to prove, due to lack of evidence, that the transaction took place in the course of export. In Mohd. Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC), the assessee was not able to prove, due to lack of evidence, that the transaction took place in the course of export. That is not so insofar as the present case is concerned. In this connection, we would also like to refer to section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which 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." A reading of section 5(1) clearly suggests that the export of goods, for the purposes of the Act shall be deemed to take place if the sale or purchase of the goods either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after they have crossed the custom frontiers. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the facts on record show that the sale of the goods by the assessee through STC had taken place after the goods had crossed the custom frontiers both by ship as well as by aircraft. This is a finding of fact that has been arrived at by the Tribunal and in a reference made to us under section 45(1) of the Act it is not possible for us to go behind this factual determination unless it is perverse. It is not the case of learned counsel for the Revenue that the decision rendered by the Tribunal is perverse. That being so, there is no option but to hold that in the instant case the transaction of sale took place after the goods had left the custom frontiers of India. Thereafter, no sales tax would be leviable on such transaction. Under the circumstances, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly.