JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The revision petitioner-firm is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter relates to the assessment year 1987-88. In this revision the attack is against levy of tax at 6 per cent on the purchase turnover of rubber from July 1, 1987 to August 20, 1987. Tax was formerly imposed on the said commodity at 5 per cent. By Finance Act, 1987 (18 of 1987) the tax was enhanced to 6 per cent. The Finance Act, 1987, was published in the Kerala Gazette only on August 20, 1987. The provisions of the Act were given retrospective effect to take effect from July 1, 1987. It is the retrospectivity given by the said legislation that was attacked by the assessee before the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal. 2. We heard counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. V. Asokan and also counsel for the Revenue Mr. V. C. James, Senior Government Pleader. 3. Rubber was taxable under entry 161 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act before its amendment by Finance Act 17 of 1988. It was taxable under entry 38 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act before its amendment by Finance Act 18 of 1987 at 5 per cent at the point of last purchase in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5. As per the Kerala Finance Act, 1987 (18 of 1987) the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was amended drastically. Entry 161 of the First Schedule to the kerala General Sales Tax Act as amended by the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987, levies tax on rubber excluding synthetic rubber at the point of last purchase in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5 at 6 per cent. Section 1(2) of the Act gives retrospective effect to Act 18 of 1987 from July 1, 1987. The Act was published in the Gazette only on August 20, 1987. 4. The main plea of the revision-petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the enhanced percentage of tax cannot be levied for the period from July 1, 1987 to August 20, 1987. The Act was published in the Gazette only on August 20, 1987. 4. The main plea of the revision-petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the enhanced percentage of tax cannot be levied for the period from July 1, 1987 to August 20, 1987. In other words, the plea was that the retrospective effect given to the Finance Act is ultra vires and illegal. Before the Tribunal the decision of this Court in Hotel Elite v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 119 was relied on in support of the plea. The Appellate Tribunal held that this Court was concerned in that case with entry 57 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as amended by Finance Act 18 of 1987 read with entry 4 of the Fifth Schedule. Entry 57 related to levy of tax on cooked food including beverages, etc. In connection with the levy on the said goods an assurance was given by the Advocate-General, who appeared for the State then, that tax as per entry 57 of the First Schedule and entry 4 of the Fifth Schedule will be collected only with effect from August 20, 1987. The said concession cannot apply to other goods. The Tribunal held that in this case they are concerned with rubber which is a different item and so a concession on the basis of the decision rendered in [1988] 69 STC 119 (Ker) (Hotel Elite v. State of Kerala) is inapplicable. The Tribunal further held that the State Legislature is competent to enact the law prospectively as also retrospectively and there is nothing to show that the levy made retrospectively is unreasonable or otherwise invalid. In this revision the revision petitioner assails the order passed by the Tribunal dated June 1, 1992. 5. The assessee has formulated three main questions in this revision. They centre round the legality or validity of the retrospective effect given by Finance Act, 1987 (18 of 1987). We are afraid that in a revision filed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act it is not open to the assessee to challenge the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires. It is impermissible to do so. (See Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968] 22 STC 416 at page 434; AIR 1969 SC 78 at page 89, proposition No. 3). It is impermissible to do so. (See Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968] 22 STC 416 at page 434; AIR 1969 SC 78 at page 89, proposition No. 3). Even this Court cannot go into the legality of the legislation in this proceeding under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. We hold so. 6. With regard to the power of the State Legislature to enact the law retrospectively and the test to be applied to find whether it is reasonable, it is only sufficient to refer to two Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar [1963] 50 ITR 171 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 1667 paragraphs 10 to 20, and the decision in Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam AIR 1964 SC 925 at page 941 paragraph 45. In the light of the above decisions by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it is idle to contend that in giving retrospectivity to Finance Act, 1987 (18 of 1987), the Legislature overstepped its limits or that the legislation is in any way unreasonable or makes any inroad into the petitioner's fundamental or other rights. The plea is a far cry. No other point was raised in this revision. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed with costs including advocate's fee Rs. 2,000. Petition dismissed.