Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised in the connected tax revision cases filed by the Revenue is whether the sales made by the petitioner of cotton yarn is local sale or interstate sale. The assessment pertains to the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The petitioner was enjoying sales tax exemption on local sales by virtue of certificate issued by the Industries Department. However, no exemption was available on interstate sales. It appears from the correspondence namely, letter accompanied by the return filed by the petitioner that petitioner tried to get exemption on CST sales also. Pending petitioner's attempt to get exemption from Government, petitioner went on filing monthly returns in Form No.2 prescribed under the CST Rules without payment of tax. However, since exemption was not granted, interstate sales were assessed. In the assessment, petitioner claimed the sales as local sales on the ground that the purchaser's agent came from outside Kerala, took delivery and transported the goods outside Kerala. Though the Assessing Officer rejected the claim, it was allowed in first appeal and confirmed by the Tribunal against which these revisions are filed. We have heard Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. During hearing, Government Pleader produced the assessment records wherein it is seen that the entire turnover involved was returned by the assessee in the CST return filed in Form No.2. In the covering letter issued by the respondent along with return, it is specifically stated that interstate sales are claimed exempt because of respondent's expectation of exemption from Government. We do not know on what basis the respondent after failing to get exemption from Government can convert interstate sales to local sales. Obviously respondent's effort is to get over liability under CST by twisting the facts. The respondent admittedly has not produced any details or evidence about he agency transaction or even how the agent transported the goods from out of Kerala. Respondent has no case that the so-called agent has registration under the KGST Act or CST Act in Kerala without which he cannot transport the goods. On the other hand, factually it is proved that goods were transported under cover of delivery notes in Form No.26 issued by the respondent. The respondent has not furnished any details of the sales and the payments arranged by the so-called agent. On the other hand, factually it is proved that goods were transported under cover of delivery notes in Form No.26 issued by the respondent. The respondent has not furnished any details of the sales and the payments arranged by the so-called agent. It is patently clear that the introduction of agent and claim of sale to him in Kerala is only to camouflage interstate sales as local sales to avoid payment of CST. It is also worthwhile to mention that even if goods are lifted by agent, the sale will still be interstate sale because pursuant to contract of sale the goods moved out of the State. Admittedly goods sold were consigned outside the State and the movement of goods were under cover of documents of transport issued by the respondent. We do not think respondent was entitled to contend such declared interstate sales as local sales later. The orders of the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal are factually and legally unsustainable. We, therefore, reverse the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and restore the assessment order. The revision cases are allowed as above.