JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. In this Tax Revision Case various points were originally raised. None of them are pressed before us. The only point urged is regarding the taxability of 'copra' as such and this on the basis of a memo filed before us to-day. The point raised being a pure question of law we allowed the additional point raised being argued. 2. Item 41 to the schedule to the notification, dated 1st April 1958 published in the Kerala Gazette, Ext. No. 53, dated Ist April 1958 reads thus: 'coconut including copra, and item 44 is in these terms: "Cashewnut including its kernel". We had recently to consider the question whether the kernel of the cashewnut after shelling was taxable. We held that 'cashewnut including kernel' the item which was made taxable at the last purchase point, meant the whole or unshelled nut. The decision is reported in Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (1962 KLT. 725). We think the reasoning in that case will apply to the question that arises for decision here. 3. Certain changes were effected to the Schedule to the Sales Tax Act by the General Sales tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1958. In column 2 of item 35 for the word 'cocount' the words "coconut including copra" were substituted and in item 37 for the words "cashew and its kernels" the words "cashewnut including its kernel" were substituted. In the objects and reasons it is stated in Para.2: "Cashew and its kernel are liable to tax at 4 nP. in the rupee at the last point of purchase within the State. Doubts have been raised as to whether the purchase of cashew kernel produced out of raw nuts on which tax has already been paid is liable to be taxed again. It is not the intention to tax the chashew kernel again in such cases. It is proposed to make this position clear by amending item 37 of the Schedule. For the removal of a similar doubt regarding the liability of coconut and copra it is proper to amend item 35 and omit item 36." 4. Item 36 as it originally stood read copra. From the objects and reasons it is clear that the intention is not to tax coconut and copra separately. For the removal of a similar doubt regarding the liability of coconut and copra it is proper to amend item 35 and omit item 36." 4. Item 36 as it originally stood read copra. From the objects and reasons it is clear that the intention is not to tax coconut and copra separately. So we direct that the assessment made on the turnover relating to the last purchase of copra will be vacated and necessary alteration made in the assessment order. There will be no order as to costs in the Tax Revision Case.