ORDER G. CHOCKALINGAM, J. The above Revisions arise against the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), in MTSA Nos.575, 576 and 614 of 1998, dated 02.03.2000. 2. The details of disputed turnover, tax surcharge, Additional Sales Tax and penalty are furnished below:- Sl. No MTA No. Turnover (Rs.) Tax (Rs.) Surcharge (Rs.) AST (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. 575/98 4,58,72,103 16,68,766 1,48,963 7,05,806 ­- 2. 576/98 8,73,19,455 34,97,442 5,57,594 22,18,572 - 3. 614/98 4,56,84,238 18,63,707 26,656 1,67,164 83,355 3. The Revenue inter alia has contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in partly allowing the appeals in a cursory manner without any detailed discussion and consideration of the merits of the matter with reference to records. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have given up the contentions raised by the respondent without recording the reasons therefor and the order is therefore be of any reasoning. The Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was second purchaser of coconut copra and hence not eligible to tax under Entry 4(viii) of the second schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the respondent engaged in crushing of oil would alternatively be liable to tax under Section 7-A(I)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal has further erred in allowing the exemption of consignment sales since the respondent had failed to maintain records as required under the Rule 26(5)(A) of the TNGST Rules and failed to produce the same either before the Assessing Authority or before the Appellate Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent engaged in crushing of oil would alternatively be liable to tax under Section 7(A)(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, the Revenue has contended that the revision cases are to be allowed by setting aside the common order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. In view of the above, the Revenue has contended that the revision cases are to be allowed by setting aside the common order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Even though the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, has passed a common order in nine cases, namely MTA Nos.609, 610, 832, 573, 574, 575, 576, 614 and 615 of 1998, dated 02.03.2000, the Revenue has preferred three appeals only as against MTA Nos.574, 575 and 614 of 1998 and thereby allowing the common order passed in 6 cases in respect of MTA Nos.609, 610, 832, 573, 574 and 615 of 1998 to become final. The stand of the Revenue in filing only three appeals, out of 9 cases, leaving behind the order of 6 cases to become final, cannot be accepted. 6. Apart from that, with regard to the contention of the Revenue that assessee was not second purchaser of coconut copra and hence they are not eligible to tax under Entry 4(viii) of the second schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959, the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in its order has clearly stated as follows: “In 46 STC 404 (Sri Lakhsmi Coconut Industries vs. The State of Karnataka and another), it has been laid down that matured coconuts as well as desiccated coconuts (Copra) are declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Even a bare reading of the entries quoted above shows that Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Even a bare reading of the entries quoted above shows that only tender coconuts have been taken away from the ambit of entry 6(viii) of the Second Schedule. Item 69 of the first schedule can only apply to tender coconuts. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the assessee in this case, is only a second purchaser of declared goods. The point of levy is the first purchaser M/s.Jeyam and Co., But GOP 28 dated 5.1.85 issued under Section 17 of the TNGST Act, 1959 exempts purchase of coconuts by any dealer other than oil Millers. Therefore, M/s Jeyam and Co., escapes. Since the point cannot be shifted as per 114 STC 1, the respondent assessee also escapes. It is no doubt unfortunate and not intended by the Government. Therefore, M/s Jeyam and Co., escapes. Since the point cannot be shifted as per 114 STC 1, the respondent assessee also escapes. It is no doubt unfortunate and not intended by the Government. A question arose whether purchase tax under Section 7-A of the TNGST Act could be imposed on the assessee, but it is not proper to consider that issue, because at no point, the issue was raised by the Revenue.” Discrete. A reading of the above would make it clear that the point of levy is the first purchaser i.e. M/s Jeyam and Co., and the assessee in the present cases is only a second purchaser of declared goods. In addition to that there was no evidence of purchase of copra other than from M/s.Jeyam and Co.. 7. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the decision reported in (1998) 5 SCC 349 (Shanmuga Traders and Ors. V. State of T.N. and Ors.), wherein at paragraphs 12 and 13 it is held as follows;- “12. We do not think that the conclusion reached by the Madras High Court in the order under appeal can be upheld. The goods with which we are concerned being declared goods, they can only be taxed at a single point, that is, only one sale in the State can be subjected to tax. It is for the State to determine whether the single point should be the point of first sale in the State or the last sale in the State or any intermediate sale in the State. If the single point is fixed by the State at, say, the point of first sale and the State exempts the first sale from payment of tax, either by a general provision or a specific provision applicable to a class of seller, the particular seller or the goods sold may not be subjected to tax at either that point of first sale or any subsequent sale in the State. 13. The second schedule of the State Act specifies the single point; it is “the point of first sale in the State”. The first sale in the State was the sale by the said Board to the appellants/petitioners. That sale was exempt from tax by reason of the notification dated 1.12.1982 aforementioned. 13. The second schedule of the State Act specifies the single point; it is “the point of first sale in the State”. The first sale in the State was the sale by the said Board to the appellants/petitioners. That sale was exempt from tax by reason of the notification dated 1.12.1982 aforementioned. The iron and steel sold by the said Board to the appellants/petitioners was, therefore, not liable to tax either at the point of first sale or any subsequent sale in the State.” In these circumstances, we find no ground much less any substantial ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Revisions deserve no merit and the same are dismissed. No costs.” 8. In order to fix the liability under Section 7-A of the Act, as alleged by the Revenue three elements like 'taxable turnover', 'taxable goods' and 'taxable event' are absolutely necessary. Examination of the facts in the present case proved that the coconut at the 2nd point of purchase is not taxable goods, and with reference to the taxable person, the assessee is not a taxable person because they are only second purchaser of coconut. Therefore, in the absence of the above two vital elements, liability cannot be shifted on the assessee though he is an oil miller and the point of levy of tax on the first purchaser as prescribed under entry 6(viii) of the 2nd Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 cannot be shifted to the second purchaser under Section 4 of the TNGST Act, 1959. The above referred citation would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Apart from that, with regard to the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal has totally erred in having granted exemption on sales of coconut shell since the exemption granted is applicable to firewood only and the coconut shell cannot be any stretch of imagination be equated to that of firewood, the Revenue have not produced any evidence that the assessee used the coconut shell other than firewood. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of the Tribunal has to be allowed in this regard. 10. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of the Tribunal has to be allowed in this regard. 10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, has erred in allowing the exemption of consignment sales inasmuch as the respondent had failed to maintain records as required under Rule 26(5)(A) of the TNGST Rules and failed to produce the same either before the Assessing Authority or before the Appellate Tribunal. He further contended that in these circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the exemption claimed on consignment sales since it is impossible to cross verify the genuineness of the same due to efflux of time. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in its judgment has correctly answered as follows:- “With regard to the disallowance of claim of exemption for the consignment sales effected, the learned counsel during the time of hearing had contended that all documents required to be furnished as stipulated under the Act. For the consignment sales effected the appellants had duly furnished the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. But, the Assessing Officer had failed to consider those records and documents. But, the disallowed the same for want of affidavits On appeal the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner had simply confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. During the time of hearing the learned counsel had produced the following documents along with affidavits for out perusal. 1. Copies of the agreement with the commission agent 2. Proforma Invoice 3. LR Copy 4. Sale pattial given by the Agent 5. Sale bill copies issued by the Agent 6. Stock particulars held by the Agent. 7. Form XX and 8. Affidavits etc., The documents furnished by the learned counsel were verified in the presence of the learned Additional State Representative are found correct. The tax suffered at other and is also proved. Therefore, the exemption disallowed on consignment sales by the lower authorities are set aside and we delete this turnover from assessment, for the turnover noted against each year.” 11. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error, illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The order of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence and it is not a perverse order. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error, illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The order of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence and it is not a perverse order. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with law and no questions of law arise for our consideration. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed and the Tax Cases (Revision) are dismissed. No costs.