ORDER P. S. NARAYANA, J. Heard Sri Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, representing the respondents. The only question, which had been argued in elaboration by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, is that the Tribunal totally erred in deciding a new issue altogether, that too without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner in addressing the arguments relating to the said issue. Incidentally, the learned senior counsel made certain submissions relating to the factual matrix of the matter and relied on the observations made by the apex court in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. State of A.P. [2008] 14 VST 351; [2008] VIL 04 SC. On the contrary, Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents would submit that in view of section 21(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the CST Act"), it cannot be said that any new issue, as such, had been decided. Even otherwise, it is just an interpretation of the provision and hence, it cannot be said to be a case where the Tribunal, for the first time, had decided a totally new issue. Heard the learned counsel. The tax revision case is filed under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, "the APGST Act"), being aggrieved by an order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T.A. No. 302 of 2000, dated August 23, 2007. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the APGST and CST Acts. It was originally on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Agapura Circle, Hyderabad, and presently on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle. The petitioner has its factory at Faridabad and 21 branches all over India. The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contracts and also in trading in electrical goods. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the course of assessment for 1994-95 under the CST Act, the petitioner claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 14,91,959 which represents transit sales effected by the petitioner under section 6(2) of the CST Act. The transit sales are effected while the goods are in transit from one State to another by endorsement of documents of title to the goods to a third party. 14,91,959 which represents transit sales effected by the petitioner under section 6(2) of the CST Act. The transit sales are effected while the goods are in transit from one State to another by endorsement of documents of title to the goods to a third party. The petitioner receives E1 form from the supplier and "C" form from the buyer and on filing such declarations, exemption would be allowed under section 6(2) of the CST Act. Supplies made by the inter-State seller under two invoices were for Rs. 4,78,309 while the same quantity was sold by the petitioner as transit sales at a higher value of Rs. 14,91,959. The "C" forms were filed for Rs. 14,91,959 and E1 forms for Rs. 4,78,309. On the ground that there is variation between value of E1 and "C" forms, the assessing authority exempted the turnover to the extent of the value covered by E1 form and assessed the difference of Rs. 10,13,650 to tax at four per cent on the ground that the turnover is not covered by E1 forms. It is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who has dismissed the same agreeing with the view of the assessing authority that the turnover of Rs. 10,13,650 is not covered by E1 forms. A further appeal was filed by the petitioner to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the transit sale exemption cannot be restricted to Rs. 4,78,309 as against the claim of Rs. 14,91,959 since E1 form filed by the petitioner for Rs. 4,79,959 covers the entire transit sales of Rs. 14,91,959 and that the price mentioned in E1 form is purchase value and that while giving exemption on transit sale, the assessing authority must take the quantum of sale price as Rs. 14,91,959 covered by "C" forms. The petitioner claimed that LR number, E1 certificate, the purchase invoice and its sale invoice showed that the goods purchased were sold by it for Rs. 14.91 lakhs. Further, it is stated that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its order, dated August 23, 2007, dismissed the appeal on an altogether different ground without putting the petitioner on notice. While the question before the Tribunal was whether the turnover of Rs. 14.91 lakhs. Further, it is stated that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its order, dated August 23, 2007, dismissed the appeal on an altogether different ground without putting the petitioner on notice. While the question before the Tribunal was whether the turnover of Rs. 10,30,650 is deemed to be covered by E1 form, the Tribunal did not advert to that question but proceeded to hold that the manner in which the transactions were effected by the petitioner itself does not qualify to be called as a transit sale. According to the Tribunal, under section 6(2) of the Act, for the subsequent sale to be exempt, the first sale should have either one or other of the following two conditions : (a) Sale has occasioned movement of such goods from one State to another. (b) Sale has been effected by transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another. Further, it is stated that the Tribunal observed that it is only when the first sale satisfies either of the two conditions, subsequent sale effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods would be exempt. Applying the said reasoning to the facts of the petitioner's case, the Tribunal found that the first sale effected by Purnima Industries, Baroda as well as Man Structurals Limited, Jaipur, was occasioned by reason of the order placed by the ultimate customer, GVK Industries Limited on the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner set about to procure the goods required by the customer and brought the same to Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal held that the "first sale" has not been effected by transfer of documents of title concerned during their movement from one State to another. This view has been taken on the ground that the goods have already been consigned to the account of GVK Industries who is a predetermined buyer before the goods have moved from Jaipur or Baroda. The two sales do not qualify as transit sales for the purpose of section 6(2) of the Act, as per the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that invoices of the petitioner indicate the site office address as c/o. GVK Industries, Kadiyam Mandalam, thus making it clear that the petitioner is nothing but an engineering procurement contractor for GVK Industries. Accordingly, the sale of goods worth Rs. The Tribunal observed that invoices of the petitioner indicate the site office address as c/o. GVK Industries, Kadiyam Mandalam, thus making it clear that the petitioner is nothing but an engineering procurement contractor for GVK Industries. Accordingly, the sale of goods worth Rs. 14,91,959 was held to be not eligible for exemption under section 6(2) and any submission of E1 forms would be immaterial since the basic ingredients of section are not satisfied. The assessing authority was directed to pass consequential orders within three months from the date of order. Thus, challenging the order impugned of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present revision had been filed raising several grounds and also formulating the questions of law. The relevant portion of the order, which is impugned in the present tax revision case, reads as hereunder : "The question to be decided by us is whether the goods sold by the appellant to M/s. GVK Industries are covered by the provisions of section 6(2) of the CST Act to make the sale of goods from the appellant to GVK Industries exempt under the CST Act ? Section 6(2) of the CST Act reads as under : '6. Liability to tax on inter-State sales. - (1) to (1A) ... Section 6(2) of the CST Act reads as under : '6. Liability to tax on inter-State sales. - (1) to (1A) ... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), where a sale of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has either occasioned the movement of such goods from one State to another or has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, any subsequent sale during such movement effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods, - (a) to the Government, or (b) to a registered dealer other than the Government, if the goods are of the description referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, shall be exempt from tax under this Act : Provided that no such subsequent sale shall be exempt from tax under this sub-section unless the dealer effecting the sale furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, - (a) a certificate duly filled and signed by the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; and (b) if the subsequent sale is made, - (i) to a registered dealer, a declaration referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8, or (ii) ...' From a reading of the above section, it is clear that the section envisages two sales in which the second sale will be exempt subject to the fact that either one or the other of the two conditions laid down in the section, is met by the first sale. For the subsequent sale to be exempt, the first sale, according to the section shall have either one or the other of the following two attributes : (a) The sale has occasioned the movement of such goods from one State to another; (b) The sale has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another. It is very clear from a plain reading of section 6(2) that either one of the above two conditions should be met by the first sale in order to render any subsequent sale, which is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods in question, exempt under the CST Act." No doubt, the Tribunal further proceeded to consider, which are the sales in the present case, in detail, and recorded certain reasons and ultimately dismissed the appeal with certain directions. This court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits of the contentions, which had been floated by the respective counsel on record. The apex court in National Aluminium Company's case [2008] 14 VST 351; [2008] VIL 4 SC observed as hereunder : "It is the stand of the appellant in these appeals that the Tribunal could not have recorded a finding that there was an intra-State sale within the State of Orissa. That was not the subject-matter of dispute before the Tribunal. Strictly speaking there was no sale involved to attract levy of any sales tax. But without any material to hold that there was any sale involved and that too an intra-State sale within the State of Orissa, the Tribunal could not have come to the impugned conclusion. It is contended that Central sales tax has been deposited in the State of Orissa in respect of the transaction, though legally no tax was payable." The apex court further observed : "It is clear that the scope of consideration before the Tribunal was very limited as to whether any sale took place within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having decided that issue, Tribunal was not required to go into any other question particularly when the relevant factors were not before it. Having decided that issue, Tribunal was not required to go into any other question particularly when the relevant factors were not before it. ..." In the light of the view expressed by the apex court, as specified above, and also in the light of the specific stand taken by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner that, for the first time, the Tribunal had decided altogether a new question, which, in fact, had not been, before either the preliminary authority or the appellate authority, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to both the parties to advance their submissions on this question, which had been argued before this court, and also the incidental or the ancillary questions, if any, which may be argued, and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the tax revision case is allowed to the extent indicated above, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.