ORDER K. Govindarajulu, J.—Facts necessary for the consideration of the present petition are as follows : The petitioner is a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner is carrying on his business within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-transition, Hassan. The assessment of the turnover for the year 2003-04 is concluded by an order dated July 16, 2005. Thereafter the assessing authority had issued a notice in form No: 31A, contending in the notice that certain transactions of the petitioner are covered under proviso to section 5(3) (a) of the Act, 1957. Facts narrated in the assessment order are as follows : For example the assessee has purchased 'ROJPHOS' branded rock phosphate from M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited, Hemavathy Nagar, Hassan, vide invoice No. 38 dated February 6, 2004 where 147 MTS of 'ROJPHOS' is sold at Rs. 7,78,066 wherein sale price of one MT of 'ROJPHOS' Rock Phosphate is at Rs. 2,103. On the same day the assessee has also effected first sale of 20 MT of these goods to M/s. Krishna Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Goa vide invoice No. 1241 dated February 26, 2004 for Rs. 59,987 wherein sale price is at Rs. 2,999. In both cases it is 'ROJPHOS' (18-20 per cent fertilizer grade) and both are first sales. However, the purchase of these goods by the assessee is less than Rs. 896 whereas a first dealer the same goods are sold at Rs. 896. Therefore on the profit margin at 43 per cent the State has lost revenue. Therefore, it is exclusively branded goods. Therefore, the assessee cannot say that they are not liable to pay tax on the same premise. The assessee has increased the profit margin on which the State have got tax at first sale point. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is one of the distributor for M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited in respect of a product/goods named as "RAJPHOS", a rock phosphate used as fertilizer. The other distributor is Indian Potas Ltd. Under the agreement dated April 28, 2003 there is no specific area exclusively allotted for marketing of the product to the petitioner only, hence the proposed notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as per annexure D is not applicable to the transactions of the petitioners. The other distributor is Indian Potas Ltd. Under the agreement dated April 28, 2003 there is no specific area exclusively allotted for marketing of the product to the petitioner only, hence the proposed notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as per annexure D is not applicable to the transactions of the petitioners. Therefore seek for setting aside the demand raised against the petitioner and also to set aside the order dated July 16, 2005 under which assessment was finalised directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 6,28,039. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that it is not only the petitioner who is selling the fertilizer under the brand name RAJPHOS, but also M/s. Indian Potash Limited is selling the said product. In view of more than one dealer dealing in the product, the approach of the assessing authority, the Joint Commissioner and the KAT is in incorrect approach. As there is another dealer and petitioner is not the sole dealer, it seeks for allowing the petition. 4. In reply, the Additional Government Advocate submits that the applicability of proviso to section 5 (3) (a) needs consideration. It has to be read in the spirit with which it is enacted, a separate class of dealers/transactions are carved, hence there is no merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. We have carefully considered the material placed on record, and the submissions addressed. The question of law that arises for our consideration is : Whether in the facts, figures and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law, sustaining the finding of the first appellate authority that sole distributor does not mean one person in the State and there may be several number of sole distributors for the same company and all such distributors are coming under the purview of the sixth proviso to section 5(3)(a) of the said Act. 6. 6. The proviso to section 5(3) (a) reads as follows : Provided also that where goods are sold, under a brand name by the trade mark holder or the brand name holder or any other dealer having the right as proprietor or otherwise to use the said name or trade mark either directly or through another on his own account or on account of other, exclusively to a marketing agent or distributor or wholesaler or any other dealer, subsequent sale of such goods by the latter shall also be liable to tax under this section and the tax so payable shall be reduced by the amount of tax already paid on the sale of such goods by the former. 7. The proviso covers transaction/sale of goods and the following are the ingredients of the proviso. (i) Under a brand name, by a trade mark holder Brand name holder Dealer having the right, as a proprietor or otherwise to use the said name/trade mark, either directly or through another. (ii) On his own account On account of other (iii) Exclusively to a market agent/distributor/wholesaler/dealer (iv) Subsequent sale of such goods by the latter (v) Is liable to tax under this section (vi) The tax so payable be reduced by the amount of tax already paid on the sale of such goods by the former. 8. The discussion supra would disclose that the sale transactions which are carried on under a product name, exclusively by a certain dealer are covered, does not contemplate that exclusive right to deal with the said goods should be given to a particular dealer or sole dealer. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that one more dealer is also dealing, the proviso is not attracted is an incorrect approach. In view of the section covering the specified class of the transactions, the material particulars of the transactions of the petitioner, fall within the ambit of the section as the petitioner is dealing with the RAJPHOS, as an agent of the manufacturer M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited. "Exclusively used" cannot be given a meaning according to geographical boundaries. Exclusively has to be understood authorising the one, excluding other or a group. Court holds that there is no merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, so it is rejected. 9. Subject can be analysed from yet another angle also. "Exclusively used" cannot be given a meaning according to geographical boundaries. Exclusively has to be understood authorising the one, excluding other or a group. Court holds that there is no merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, so it is rejected. 9. Subject can be analysed from yet another angle also. Transaction illustrated supra at para 2, that the proviso intended is to cover a separate category of transactions, on this ground also the submission of advocate for petitioner is rejected. In the light of the above findings, petition is without any merit, so it is rejected..