Judgment :- Paripoornan, J. This batch of five revisions are at the instance of the same assessee - a public limited company engaged in the cultivation of tea and rubber in its own plantations. The assessee is a small unit. It does not engage itself in processing green tea leaves into manufactured tea. It is selling green tea leaves as such. It is also selling the rubber produced in its plantation both locally and inter-state. We are concerned with the assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1979-80,1980-81,1981-82 and 1982-83 and with the Central Sales tax assessments for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2. The sole question that arose for consideration before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal was whether the green tea leaves grown by the assessee is an agricultural produce and cannot form part of the turnover. The submission was that the word "tea" occurring in Explanation (1) to S.2(xxi) and Explanation (1) to S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act can only be manufactured tea. The Appellate Tribunal negatived this plea. In the Central Sales tax assessments, a further plea was taken that the assessee is not a dealer. This plea was also negatived by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the matter by a common order dated 23-7-1990. Aggrieved by the said common order passed against the assessee, it has come up in revisions. 3. We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner/assessee, Mr. K.C. Balagangadharan. A common plea was put forward in all the revisions to the effect that the green tea leaves grown by the revision-petitioner is not tea within the meaning of Explanation. (1) to S.2(xxi) and Explanation (1) to S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act. If that be so, the green tea leaves grown by the assessee is agricultural produce and cannot form part of the turnover. We are unable to accept this plea. (1) to S.2(xxi) and Explanation (1) to S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act. If that be so, the green tea leaves grown by the assessee is agricultural produce and cannot form part of the turnover. We are unable to accept this plea. In Varkey v. A.I.T. & Rural Sales Tax Officer' [(1954) 5 S.T.C. 348 =1954 KLT SN P.12], M.S. Menon, J. (as he then was) held thus, at page 351: "Tea" in the context in which it occurs cannot but mean the leaf gathered from the tea bush whether it has or has not been subjected to the processes which prepares it for the market." The learned judge further stated thus, at page 352: "the word "tea" is not used therein in the sense it is used in commerce, in Mincing Lane or a grocer's shop, but in the sense of a product of plant life, the resultant crop of man's labour in the culture of land It follows that the green leaves, just like those leaves after they are processed, are liable to sales tax under the provisions of the Act." 4. The above 'decision has stood the test of time for nearly 35 years. The said decision has not been dissented or overruled. We do not find any sufficient reason or justification to take a different view of the law, at this distance of time. So, we hold that the word "tea" occurring in Explanation (1) to S.2(xxi) and Explanation (1) to S.2(xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act is not confined to manufactured tea. It will take in green tea leaves also. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. 5. The only plea is that the assessee cannot be a "dealer" in view of the definition of the said word in the Central Sales tax Act. This plea is also without substance, in view of the Bench decision of this Court in Braemore Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1989 (2) KLT632). 6. No other point was raised, at the lime of hearing. The Tax Revision Cases are without merit. They are dismissed.