The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an integral connection or inextricable link between the sale following the import and the actual import provided by an obligation to import arising from statute, contract, or mutual understanding or nature of the transaction.

K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.

Identical questions arise for consideration in these batch of 37 revisions. These revisions are preferred against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. There, T.A. Nos. 713 and 1020 of 1975 were treated as the main cases and a common order was passed dated 11th March, 1985, disposing of the appeals. The revisions filed from the said apples, T.A. Nos. 713 and 1020 of 1975, are T.R.C. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1986. The common order passed in T.A. Nos. 713 and 1020 of 1975 was followed in all other cases. So, in this Court also, at the request of counsel appearing for both parites, T.R.C. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1986 were treated as the main cases and it was agreed by counsel on both sides that the decision in the said revisions will govern all other revisions in these batch of cases. T.R.C. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1986 relate to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The same revision-petitioner in both the cases, is an assessee under the kerala General Sales Tax Act. He is a cashew dealer. The Revenue is the respondent in both the revisions. Common questions arose for consideration for these two years. They were disposed of by a common order by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in T.A. Nos. 713 and 1020 of 1975 by order dated 11th March, 1985. Briefly stated, the point in dispute is regarding the tenability of the claim of exemption put forward by the assessee/revision-petitioner on the turnover of "African nuts" for these two years. The assessing authority held that the turnover of African nuts, which were purchased by the assessee from M/s. Cashew Corporation of India Ltd., were only local purchases and not purchases "in the course of import" within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The appeals filed by the assessee, before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Appeals), Quilon, were dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the aforesaid decisions. The assessee has come up in revisions.

2. At the outset, it should be stated that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 713 and 1020 of 1975 dated 11th March, 1985, has dealt with the only question, as to whether the purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Cashew Corporation of India Ltd., are in the course of import and so exempt under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In para 13 of the appellate order, the Tribunal has observed, that the other contentions raised in the appeal memorandum were not pressed by the appellant (assessee). On this basis, the other contentions were rejected as not pressed. Counsel for the revision petitioner made a feeble attempt to raise questions not dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal AIR 1964 SC 377 and in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249, we indicated to counsel, that if the statement contained in para 13 of the Tribunal's order is wrong or based on a misconception, the proper remedy was to file an appropriate application for review or rectification before the Appellate Tribunal itself and it is not proper, to entertain the plea for the first time, in this Court. So, in these revisions, we are concerned with the only question, as to whether the purchases of African nuts made by the assessee from the Cashew Corporation of India Ltd., are in the course of import and so the turnover is exempt under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

3. We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner, Mr. Arikkat Vijayan Menon, and counsel for the Revenue, Mr. T. Karunakaran Nambiar, at length. Both sides brought to out notice an array of decisions of the Supreme Court of India and also referred to many documents. In the light of the order which we propose to pass to pass in these cases, it may not be necessary to refer to all of them.

4. At the outset, we should state that the Appellate Tribunal has, in para