1. Heard counsel for rival parties. The question sought to be raised in this application is :
Whether the sale of 87 vehicles by the respondent-dealer to the Government of India under five invoices was effected in the course of export covered by Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?
2 The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that the said transaction cannot be said to be within the sweep of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Reliance is placed on the division Bench judgments of this court in the case of Usha Martin Black Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra  101 STC 389 and Narang Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra  135 STC 289 in support of the submission made.
3 Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in  145 STC 176 and pressed into service the test laid down by the apex court in para 6 of the said judgment in particular to contend that the transaction in question is covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the CST Act.
4 This matter was heard by us on two previous occasions. The respondent during the course of hearing was directed to produce documents for perusal of this court, which culminated in the transaction in question. Accordingly, the documents were circulated for our perusal. After having examined the terms and conditions of the various documents placed on record, we are satisfied that on the date of sale there was a commitment of the Government of India to the Government of Tanzania to gift trucks in question. In order to fulfil the said commitment, the goods came to be exported. In our view, the transaction in question conforms to the tests laid down by the apex court in para 6 of judgment in the case of Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd.  145 STC 176.
5 So far as the division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Narang Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.  135 STC 289 is concerned, the said judgment in para 80 lays down the test to determine as to whether the sale has occasioned the export. Having applied the said test to the transaction in question, we are satisfied that the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent needs acceptance. So far as the decision in the case of Usha Martin Black Ltd.  101 STC 389 is concerned, in our view, it does not lay down a test contrary to what has been laid down in the case of Narang Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.  135 STC 289. The judgments cited by the Revenue, in our view, do not advance the case of the Revenue.
6 In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this application. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.