RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

This is a revision case filed by the State of Madras against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 297 of 1962. The assessee is the Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society, and we are told that it has got nearly 15, 000 members on its rolls. For the year 1959-60 the taxable turnover of the assessee as determined by the Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, was Rs. 12, 49, 000 odd. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Salem, claiming that a sum of Rs. 12, 06, 000 odd represented sales of agricultural produce of its members and that those sales were entitled to exemption from assessment under the proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner negatived the claim for exemption. The assessee then appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal disputing the same turnover on the ground that it was entitled to exemption under the proviso to section 2(r). In the grounds of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee-Society contended :

"We are only acting on behalf of the agriculturist who forms part of the institution and market his produce to his best advantage through the merchants and as such we are not directly undertaking any purchases or sales. We are neither sellers nor purchasers so far as these transactions are concerned. The agriculturist is paid on the spot, while the merchant is allowed credit accommodation, for payment of sale proceeds to the Society at a later date. As we are paying in advance the agriculturist on the spot and collect his sale proceeds from the merchants at a later date, the sale turnover effected by the agriculturist member finds a place in our accounts. They will not in law amount to purchases or sales by us. Thus, the sale proceeds represent actually the amount of sales effected by the agriculturist member and not by us, since we are neither purchasers nor sellers in the above transactions." *

The Tribunal also, in its judgment, referred to the above grounds of appeal and has given an extract from a typical transaction in which one of the agriculturist members of the Society was concerned, which is illustrative of the transactions making up the disputed turnover. There is a receipt given by the Society at the time when the agriculturist brings his produce to the Society's godown, and the receipt reads that the sale should not be effected without the consent of the member. The next day, the commodity covered by the receipt was sold to a purchaser and the agriculturist, who brought the goods to the godown of the Society on the previous day, had signed in the bid list relating to the sale of the same produce. The Appellate Tribunal, however, did not determine the nature of the transaction revealed by the documents, and in the light of the contentions put forward by the Society, namely, that there was no sale by the Society at all in the particular cases, but what the Society did, in fact, was to secure for the agriculturist member the most advantageous price for his produce and paid the agriculturist member on the spot of the sale by auction, the highest price realised by the auction, but at the same time it accommodated the merchant, who made the highest bid for the agriculturist's produce, by giving him a loan for the amount of the sale to be debited against him and recovered later on. It has yet to be determined, on a proper appraisal of the data above-mentioned together with the by-laws of the Society, whether the disputed transactions were really agency sales for the agriculturist effected by the Society, or whether they were only transactions where the Society helped the agriculturist to get the most advantageous price for his goods and brought him into contact with the buyer who offered the most advantageous price and further paid at the time of the sale full cash payment to the agriculturist, while treating the amount as a loan to the buyer merchant.The Sales Tax Appell