1. In this tax appeal filed by the assessee, the order of the Board to Revenue passed in exercise of sup motu powers setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Madras I, and restoring the order of the assessing authority has been challenged. The assessee is a dealer in hardware and electrical goods. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed exemption on the ground of second sales of electrical goods (aluminium wire) in respect of a turnover of Rs. 1,53,402.31. This claim was rejected on the ground that the assessee had sold the aluminium wires to the manufacturers of aluminium utensils and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the exemption claimed. The matter was taken up in appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the rejection of the claim for exemption in relation to second sales of electrical goods was not in order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for exemption on the ground that the electrical goods in dispute had been charged sales tax at the rate of 9 per cent. at an earlier stage and that the goods having been sold as such to another dealer, the same cannot be brought to charge once again as the electrical wires sold by the assessee come within the single point scheme under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Board of Revenue, in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision, after examining the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, cancelled the exemption granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on second sales of aluminium wires and restored the orders of the assessing authority rejecting the exemption. According to the Board of Revenue since the assessee had sold aluminium wires not to an electrical dealer in electrical goods but to the manufacturer of aluminium utensils, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption of the second sales. The Board of Revenue has thus rejected the assessee's claim for exemption on the ground that the second sales of aluminium wires were effected to the manufactures of the aluminium utensils. The view taken by the Board of Revenue is that the exemption based on second sales would depend on the fact 'who the purchaser is ?' We do not see how the Board could deny the exemption of second sales merely because the purchaser has put the goods for a different use. Admittedly, the assessee is a second seller of electrical aluminium wires. The fact that he has sold the aluminium wires to the manufacturer of utensils does not make his sales any the less the second sales. We are of the view that the claim for exemption on the ground of second sales will not depend upon as to who has purchased the goods and the claim for exemption on the ground of second sales cannot be denied merely on the ground that the second sale is not to a dealer in electrical goods. Once the goods purchased and sold by the assessee are of electrical goods, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on his second sales irrespective of the fact as to who is the purchaser. The Board of Revenue had, of course, referred to certain decisions as supporting its stand; but we are of the view that the decisions referred to have no relevancy at all on the question as to whether the assessee's sales are second sales and as such, they are to be exempted. We cannot therefore accept the view taken by the Board of Revenue in this case. The Tax appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
2. Appeal allowed.