JUDGMENT V. A. MOHTA, J. - The applicant M/s. Murarka Cottage Industries, Nagpur, carries on business of running a printing press. He got himself registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the Act). During the period 1974-75 the turnover of the applicant was approximately Rs. 14,151 and during the year 1975-76 it was Rs. 63,012. On the whole of the turnover of Rs. 63,012 sales tax was levied by the Sales Tax Officer since the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under entry No. 10 of the notification issued under section 41 of the Act which reads thus : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Clauses of sales or Exemption Conditions G.N.F.D. No. No. purchases. whether of & date and whole or duration. part of tax. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Sales of any articles Whole of (1) If the printed STA-1059 printed on paper, tax. articles referred to (iii) G-1 dated cardboards; pasteboard in column 2 are 28th December, or straw printed by him in 1959, board not being the printing press G.N.F.D. No. goods falling under conducted by him. STA-1071/131-M-1 entry 4 in Schedule dated 13th October, A to the Act by a (2) If during the 1972 and No. dealer who carried course of assessment STA-1077/172/RES-8 on the business of of the dealer the dated 1st conducting a printing Sales Tax Officer is April, 1977 press and who satisfied that the 29-9-63 to date. does not hold a turnover of all sales recognition. effected by the dealer during the year under assessment was less than Rs. 30,000. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed these orders and also rejected application for making a reference. It is contended that the exemption notification excludes the turnover upto Rs. 30,000 from the net of taxability and if such a construction of the notification is not possible, it is unreasonable and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The language employed in the notification is too plain to admit of the construction sought to be placed upon it by the assessee. The exemption was for small dealers having annual turnover of less than Rs. 30,000 and was not intended to exempt turnover of Rs. 30,000 from taxability. The question of validity of notification could not be gone into by the Tribunal. The exemption was for small dealers having annual turnover of less than Rs. 30,000 and was not intended to exempt turnover of Rs. 30,000 from taxability. The question of validity of notification could not be gone into by the Tribunal. We are informed by Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee has already questioned the validity of this notification by a writ petition filed in this Court which is pending in this Court. We are satisfied that there is neither any incorrectness nor illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal or the application for reference filed by the assessee. Application dismissed. No costs. Application dismissed.