JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - By the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987 sub-section (2A) was introduced in section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act") providing for the levy of turnover tax on the turnover of goods as specified therein. It provided for the levy of turnover tax at the rate of half per cent on dealers whose total turnover in a year exceeded rupees twenty-five lakhs, on their turnover of goods coming under the First or Fifth Schedule. The tax was thus payable by all dealers whose total turnover exceeded rupees twenty-five lakhs in a year, the taxable turnover being determined in the manner provided in the section. The section was subjected to annual amendments besides issue of numerous exemption/reduction in rate notifications. Thus the Government of Kerala issued three different notifications, S.R.O. Nos. 715, 716 and 717 of 1988, on June 13, 1988, in exercise of the powers vested in them under section 10 of the Act and we are concerned with these notifications in this batch of writ petitions. By the first of these notifications, the Government made an exemption in respect of the turnover tax payable by dealers on the turnover of rubber at all points except the penultimate purchase point namely, the point immediately preceding the last purchase point, excluding the purchase from agriculturists, whose total turnover exceeds rupees fifty lakhs in a year, subject to the condition that any dealer who claimed exemption on such turnover shall produce before the assessing authority concerned a declaration in the form annexed to the notification from the dealer who had paid the turnover tax. This notification was deemed to have come into force with effect from July 1, 1987 and was deemed to have been valid till February 18, 1988. The next Notification S.R.O. No. 716 of 1988 related to the subsequent period from February 19, 1988 and made an exemption in respect of the turnover tax payable on the turnover of rubber, but the exception was shifted from the penultimate purchase point under S.R.O. No. 715 of 1988 to the last purchase point, subject to the same condition of production of declaration from the dealer who had paid the turnover tax. This notification was deemed to have come into force with effect from February 19, 1988. This notification was deemed to have come into force with effect from February 19, 1988. The third notification S.R.O. No. 717 of 1988 was analogous to the first notification, and pertained to hill produce like garbled and ungarbled pepper, arecanut and dried ginger. It took effect from July 1, 1987. The notification exempted the dealers from payment of the turnover tax on the turnover of the goods in question at all points of purchase except at the point of purchase preceding the purchase in the course of export or at the point of purchase previous to the last purchase in the State, which was not exempted from turnover tax, subject to the condition of production of the declaration from the dealer who paid the turnover tax in the form annexed to the notification. For the sake of completeness, I may mention that this notification was superseded by S.R.O. No. 1008 of 1991 dated 31, 1991, which came into force on August 1, 1991, by which the Government made a reduction in respect of the turnover tax payable by dealers on pepper, garbled and ungarbled, dried ginger, arecanut and lemon grass oil from 1/2 per cent to 1/4 per cent on the turnover at all points of purchase. This notification is not under challenge before me. 2. I shall extract the first of the three notifications together with the annexed declaration form, the others, namely, S.R.O. Nos. 716 and 717 of 1988 being similar : "S.R.O. No. 715 of 1988. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make an exemption in respect of the turnover tax payable by dealers under sub-section (2-A) of section 5 of the said Act, on the turnover of rubber at all points except the penultimate purchase point, viz., purchase point immediately preceding the last purchase point excluding the purchase from the agriculturists whose total turnover exceeds, rupees fifty lakhs in a year subject to the condition that any dealer who claims exemption on such turnover tax shall produce before the assessing authority concerned a declaration in the form annexed to this notification from the dealer who had paid the turnover tax. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from July 1, 1987 and shall be deemed to have been valid till February 18, 1988. ANNEXURE Form of declaration to be furnished by a purchasing dealer for claiming exemption from turnover tax at other points. 1. I/We .............. (here enter the name and full postal address of the purchaser) dealer(s) in goods taxable at the point of purchase in the State, have purchased goods of the description given below from Shri/Messrs .............. [here enter the name and full postal address of the seller(s)]. 2. My/Our turnover for the year is not less than rupees fifty lakhs and I/we have paid turnover tax on the turnover of goods mentioned below. 3. My/Our registration certificate number is ...... (here enter R.C. No.). 4. I/We am/are registered dealer(s) on the rolls of the sales tax office ......... (here enter the name of the sales tax office) and I/we have filed our return for the month of ........ (here enter the month previous to which the purchase relates) along with proof of payment of turnover tax due for the goods which I/we am/are liable to pay. Particulars of goods purchased ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No. and Description Quantity Value of Turnover Remarks No. date of of goods --------------- goods tax due purchase No. of Weight purchased and paid bill packages issued by the purchaser ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Place : Name, signature and status of the persons signing the declaration. Date : Note. - (1) The declaration shall be filed in duplicate and shall be signed by the person who is authorised to sign return in form No. 9. (2) Any subsequent purchaser may furnish the declaration furnishing the details prescribed therein. [Notification G.O. (P) No. 70/88/TD, dated June 13, 1988 in Kerala Gazette, Extraordinary No. 520 dated June 16, 1988]." The petitioners in these cases are al dealers in rubber, pepper or ginger. They challenge the prescription in these notifications for the production of declaration from the dealer who has paid the turnover tax as a condition for their availing he benefit of the exemption under the notifications. The exemption is in respect of all points of purchase except one, namely, either the penultimate purchase or the last purchase in the State as the case may be. The exemption is in respect of all points of purchase except one, namely, either the penultimate purchase or the last purchase in the State as the case may be. In order to avail the exemption, the dealer has to produce declaration from the dealer who has paid the turnover tax testifying to his having purchased the goods and to his having paid the turnover tax on the turnover of the said goods. This condition is stated to be an impracticable one for more than one reason. In particular, it is highlighted that if the immediate purchaser is not a person liable to pay turnover tax, the selling dealer will not be in a position to procure the declaration from the succeeding dealer who eventually pays the turnover tax, thereby defeating him of the exemption. 3. Various aspects are presented to show that it is virtually impossible to comply with the condition. What the petitioners seek is that the exemption may be retained, but without the condition. 4. This contention took various forms at the hands of various counsel. Everyone of them was uniform in denouncing the condition as either unreasonable or impracticable. Some of them contended that the prescription of the condition violated article 14 of the Constitution because of the alleged impossibility of compliance. Another line of argument was that the condition resulted in the imposition of tax at more than one point which was not the intention behind the notifications. Another extreme contention raised was that since the condition imposed was onerous the Revenue should establish that a particular person sought to be made liable was the penultimate/last purchaser without any liability on the assessee to establish his claim for exemption. 5. There were also some subsidiary contentions. One was that the retrospectivity given to the notification issued on June 13, 1988 from July 1, 1987 or February 19, 1988, was bad. Parties could not be expected to procure declarations for the past and to that extent the notifications must go. Another line of contention was that all these dealers had produced declarations in form No. 25 appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, to show that the purchasers are assessees to tax under the Act. That should serve the purpose for availing the exemption under the notifications as well. 6. Another line of contention was that all these dealers had produced declarations in form No. 25 appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, to show that the purchasers are assessees to tax under the Act. That should serve the purpose for availing the exemption under the notifications as well. 6. Counsel mainly concentrated their attack on the alleged impracticability of the condition for production of the declaration and based thereon contended that the notification should receive a liberal construction. The decisions in Upper India Chamber of Commerce v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1947] 15 ITR 263 (All.) (at page 281); AIR 1948 All. 64 (paragraph 30), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sundara Mudaliar [1950] 18 ITR 259 (Mad.) (at page 271); AIR 1950 Mad. 566 (paragraph 14) and Kent County Council v. Kingsway Investments (kent) Ltd. [1970] 1 All ER 70 (HL) at page 85, and others, were cited in support of the plea that an exemption from tax granted by a statute should be given full scope and amplitude and should not be whittled down by importing limitations not intended by the Legislature. A passage from page 524, paragraph 860 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) was also referred to to contend that a statute must, if possible, be construed in the sense which makes it operative and as not to defeat the manifest intention of the Legislature. 7. The decisions in Sri Virupaksha Enterprises v. Commercial Tax Officer [1990] 77 STC 28 (Kar), Gopal Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer [1991] 82 STC 97 (Kar), Navbharat Industries & Agencies v. Additional Commissioner [1991] 82 STC 168 (Raj), were also pressed into service for the plea that a beneficial notification should receive a liberal construction and the expressions in the notification should be understood with reference to the purpose sought to be achieved by it. The court has to bear in mind the objects of the notification and should not frustrate them by a strict construction. 8. Counsel thereafter went on to contend that the offending portion of the notification regarding the declaration was severable from the exemption part of it. That could be done, without affecting the exemption itself. 9. The court has to bear in mind the objects of the notification and should not frustrate them by a strict construction. 8. Counsel thereafter went on to contend that the offending portion of the notification regarding the declaration was severable from the exemption part of it. That could be done, without affecting the exemption itself. 9. On the other hand, the Government pleader for the respondents contended that while the burden of bringing the case of an assessee within the net of taxation was on the Revenue, the burden of establishing an exemption from payment of tax lay on the assessee. He went on to state that deletion of any part of the notification will be judicial legislation and granting an exemption where it was not intended is something which the courts will not resort to. The court cannot also direct the executive or the Legislature to grant a particular concession. He mentioned that the exemption under the notifications in question was not an absolute one but a conditional one, conditional on the State being able to pitch upon one in the series of purchases or sale as liable for payment of turnover tax. I shall now deal with these points. 10. Section 5(2A) is the charging section for turnover tax. That section, as it was enacted in 1987 imposed the levy on all dealers whose turnover exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs to pay tax on the turnover of goods coming in the First or Fifth Schedule to the Act as determined in the manner provided in the section. I have already mentioned that the section was subjected to amendments as an annual feature besides being visited with numerous notifications under section 10, to all of which it is unnecessary to refer except to state that the levy continued to be a general one. The tax is thus a multi-point one leviable at every point in the series of sales or purchases by dealers whose turnover exceeded the minimum prescribed. The burden of this levy and the ultimate burden on the consumer in respect of rubber, pepper, dried ginger and arecanut was sought to be alleviated by the issue of the three notifications in question by exempting all the purchasers except the penultimate/last one from payment of the turnover tax. The burden of this levy and the ultimate burden on the consumer in respect of rubber, pepper, dried ginger and arecanut was sought to be alleviated by the issue of the three notifications in question by exempting all the purchasers except the penultimate/last one from payment of the turnover tax. By granting the exemption, what the State intended to do was to collect the turnover tax from one person only in the series of sales or purchases. It was never the State's intention to give up the collection of the turnover tax on these items in entirety. The reason why the penultimate/last purchaser was pitched upon for the levy, leaving the others out, is not a matter for judicial scrutiny, as it pertains to the realms of policy, based on administrative convenience or facilities of assessment and collection, which so far as these notifications are concerned, cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. The State was keen on collecting the tax at one point and not at all points and the dealer at that point had to be identified to enable collection of the tax at his hands. The dealers claiming the exemption were therefore required to produce the declaration mentioned in the notifications to establish that he was not the person who had to pay the turnover tax. In other words, the production of the declaration was insisted on only for the purpose of facilitating the identification of the person liable to pay the turnover tax in respect of the goods in question so that the others down the line may be exempted. It is true that the condition for production of the declaration may cause difficulties in certain case. If the purchaser from the exempted dealer is a person who himself is not the penultimate purchaser or is one who is not liable to pay the turnover tax because of his low turnover, it may be difficult for the person claiming the exemption to produce the declaration from the person who had paid the turnover tax. The subsequent purchaser from them may be liable for the turnover tax, but he may not furnish the declaration to the dealer in question. Such instances can be visualised. But, I cannot agree for these reasons that it is impossible to comply with the condition. The subsequent purchaser from them may be liable for the turnover tax, but he may not furnish the declaration to the dealer in question. Such instances can be visualised. But, I cannot agree for these reasons that it is impossible to comply with the condition. It is unlikely, having regard to the nature of the business in rubber and hill produce that there are innumberable dealers handling the goods between the agriculturist producer and the ultimate consumer or exporter. It was vividly portrayed before me that in the chain of transactions, a seller at the beginning of the chain cannot procure the declaration from another few sellers away who pays turnover tax. Such a contingency cannot ordinarily arise in the business in these commodities. In the ultimate analysis it is only likely that there are one or at best two dealers between the producer and the ultimate exporter - a local dealer who procures the goods from the agriculturists and perhaps another middle man. It is unlikely in this kind of business to have more number of dealers in the line, as petitioners portray things to be. In fact, no specific case was brought to my notice where there is such a long string of dealers or of impossibility to produce the declaration because of the large number of dealers in the line. Though the State has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit setting forth their case, I cannot envisage a situation in the case of goods like rubber and hill produce where there are more than two or at best three transactions of sale between the agriculturist producer and the consumer/exporter. Of these, the purchaser from agriculturists stands exempted in S.R.O. No. 715/88, though not in the others. According to me much of the problem vividly stated before me by counsel for the petitioners are more imaginary than real though I will not rule out individual cases, where such problems may arise. As I mentioned earlier, there will be one sale by the producer-agriculturist to a local dealer who procures such goods from the producers, who may send it directly to an exporter or to another middle man (the penultimate purchaser) in the export markets at Alapuzha, Mattancherry, Kozhikode, Vadakara or others. The theory of impossibility raised by the petitioners with a mind boggling series of transactions to reckon with does not therefore appeal to me. The theory of impossibility raised by the petitioners with a mind boggling series of transactions to reckon with does not therefore appeal to me. If this be the position, the basic premise on which the notifications are challenged falls to the ground. 11. I do not therefore find any difficulty, impossibility or impracticability in procuring the declaration for the purpose of availing the exemption under the notifications. Assuming however that an impracticability or impossibility exists, that by itself, is insufficient to strike down notifications of this nature. It is necessary here to recollect and remember that the notifications we are dealing with are exemption notifications by which all the dealers in a series of purchases and sales are exempted except one. That particular dealer who has to pay the tax has to be identified and that is the purpose to be achieved by producing the declaration. I cannot accept the petitioner's plea that the exemption granted is an unconditional one. It is a conditional one, conditional on the identification of the dealer who pays the turnover tax on the goods involved, namely, the penultimate/last purchaser. If that dealer is identified, the State can collect tax from him. But it cannot take upon itself the task of tracking down the penultimate/last purchaser after granting a benefit to the others. The exemption is not one granted as of right, but by way of concession. It is a conditional one; it does not attach itself unless the condition is satisfied. An exemption notification is to be construed strictly but not so as to frustrate its object. The decisions cited by counsel for the petitioners related to exemptions granted by the statute itself. Actually no question of construction of the notifications in question arises here. They are clear enough and no ambiguity exists in them so that the rules of strict or liberal constructions do not apply. The need to resort to interpretative process arises only when the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the provision. 12. The only question which really arises here is whether the condition regarding production of declaration is to be relieved against or not. The need to resort to interpretative process arises only when the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the provision. 12. The only question which really arises here is whether the condition regarding production of declaration is to be relieved against or not. The Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1991] 83 STC 234; AIR 1992 SC 152 , dealt with exemptions subject to conditions as follows : "The consequence which Shri Narasimhamurthy suggests should flow from the non-compliance would, indeed, be the result if the condition was a substantive one and one fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption. Its stringency and mandatory nature must be justified by the purpose intended to be served. The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." The Supreme Court incidentally referred to the observations in the earlier decision in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607; AIR 1966 SC 12 which related to a case of an exemption conditional on production of a declaration, which I feel are apposite to this case : ".............. The object of section 5(2)(a)(ii) of Act and the Rules made there-under is self-evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specified classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the two-fold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration form in the manner prescribed under the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the two-fold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration form in the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences, both of which the provisions of the said clause seek to avoid." There it was a case of avoidance of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency. The position in the notifications before me is the identification, of the one dealer who pays the tax so that the others may be exempted, inasmuch as the State did not intend to give up the tax altogether, as empowered by section 5(2A) but to limit it to one point. It is therefore obligatory on the dealers, if they wanted to be exempted, to assist the State in this task. Having been granted the exemption, the dealers cannot drive the State to the further task of proving that others have not paid the turnover tax in respect of the goods of a dealer, to fasten the liability on him, as contended by one of the petitioners. Such a procedure is unknown to the law of taxation and contrary to the principles laid down in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). 13. The provision for production of declaration is a necessary condition to be fulfilled before the exemption can be availed of. Else, it will be defeating the very levy under section 5(2A). If the State decided that they will grant the exemption only subject to the condition, for the purpose of administrative convenience and otherwise, none can find fault with them. In a taxing statute, the intention to fetch tax is the dominant one. The petitioners cannot therefore claim the exemption without complying with the condition. The tall claim made by the petitioners that the exemption may be retained without the condition is not capable of being accepted even assuming that the condition is rather difficult to comply with. 14. The various decisions cited by counsel for the petitioners do not deal with a case of this nature of an exemption dependent on fulfilment of a condition. The one apposite is that in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. 14. The various decisions cited by counsel for the petitioners do not deal with a case of this nature of an exemption dependent on fulfilment of a condition. The one apposite is that in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC); AIR 1966 SC 12 . But I must refer to one decision relied on by the petitioners, of the High court of Madhya Pradesh in M. P. Shoe House v. State of M.P. [1987] 67 STC 427. That was not a case of conditional exemption. It was a case whether exemption was granted to sales of rubber and plastic footwear by those dealing exclusively in rubber and plastic footwear. That was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and the expression exclusively was quashed. The case was dealt with under article 14. May be the decision is justified on the basis of article 14 which was the point in issue before the High court. But the question still remains whether the Government would have granted the exemption if really it was required to extend it to others. The position here is different. If it was not possible for the Government to locate the penultimate/last purchaser who paid the tax, and that was a strenuous exercise, it is impossible to hold that the Government would have granted the exemption. The question of severability which was raised, arises only if it could be held that the Government would have granted the exemption irrespective of the production of the declaration. When the Government had not evinced any intention to waive the tax, and their express intention was to collect it at one point, I find it difficult to hold that the Government would have granted the exemption or taken upon itself the task of proving the negative that the goods in question had not been subjected to turnover tax at the hands of other purchasers. 15. I am therefore of the view that the notification as it stands with the condition is valid and is not liable to be struck down in any manner. However, it must be stated, that having regard to the difficulties expressed, dealers may be permitted to prove by other satisfactory evidence, than the production of declarations, the facts sought to be established by the declaration. This will only be fair and just having regard to the avowed object of the notifications. 16. However, it must be stated, that having regard to the difficulties expressed, dealers may be permitted to prove by other satisfactory evidence, than the production of declarations, the facts sought to be established by the declaration. This will only be fair and just having regard to the avowed object of the notifications. 16. Some subsidiary contentions were also raised in the course of arguments. One was regarding the retrospectivity given to the notifications from July 1, 1987. But this led to conflicting arguments among the petitioners themselves. While Sri C. N. Ramachandran Nair representing some of the petitioners contended that the insistence on declarations for the past caused difficulties, all the other petitioners were uniform that the question of exemption should be considered only after the year is over, by which time alone the parties can produce declarations. In making his submissions Sri Ramachandran Nair forgets that what we are dealing with is an exemption. The petitioners were all liable to pay tax under section 5(2A). If they want to avail of the exemption for the period from July 1, 1987, they should comply with the condition and produce declarations. Nobody compels them to produce the declarations or to claim the exemption. They need produce them only if they want the exemption. It is not an imposition of tax but the availing of an exemption. Therefore, the petitioners, as a matter of fact, are not put to any hardship, because they were all along liable under the section as enacted, and they are being benefited by the subsequent notifications. It is open to them to avail of it or not to avail of it. This argument of Sri Ramachandran Nair is only to be stated and rejected. 17. Another subsidiary point was that the turnover tax is an yearly tax which need be paid only after the end of the year along with the annual returns. What is stated is that the liability attaches only when the turnover exceeds the limit prescribed. Moreover, in some cases like hotels and restaurants, the rate of tax itself changes depending on the quantum of turnover. Therefore the turnover tax need be paid only at the end of the year. I do not agree. What is stated is that the liability attaches only when the turnover exceeds the limit prescribed. Moreover, in some cases like hotels and restaurants, the rate of tax itself changes depending on the quantum of turnover. Therefore the turnover tax need be paid only at the end of the year. I do not agree. Section 5(2A)(ii) provides that the provisions of the Act and the Rules relating to assessment, collection and refund of tax shall apply in relation to assessment, collection and refund of turnover tax. The tax due under sections 5 and 5A are payable every month along with the monthly returns. This applies to turnover tax as well. Therefore, when once the taxable turnover for purposes of turnover tax exceeds the limit prescribed, the liability attaches itself at that moment; and the dealer becomes liable to pay tax along with the monthly returns. Of course, till that limit is reached it is not necessary for him to make any payments on the basis of any provisional returns. His liability arises when the limit is reached, when he must pay the tax at the rate applicable to that limit. 18. Another point feebly raised was that the turnover tax was a tax on income and therefore outside the purview of entry 54 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. I do not agree. The tax is payable only by virtue of the sales and purchases effected by the dealers in the State. It is related to the turnover of the dealer and the taxable event is the attainment of a certain level of turnover on the purchases and sales. A tax on income is based on the net income of the assessee and is not related to the turnover of sales or purchases. The base of the two levies is different. This point is, therefore, unsustainable. In fact, the constitutional validity of this provision was upheld by a Division Bench in Das Agencies v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 44 (Ker). 19. There was also a faint submission that the notifications are violative of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. I wonder how. It was not explained how it violates section 5(3). Even otherwise, if this contention is upheld, the consequence will be the invalidity of the notifications in toto, a consequence which none of the petitioners pressed for. 20. I wonder how. It was not explained how it violates section 5(3). Even otherwise, if this contention is upheld, the consequence will be the invalidity of the notifications in toto, a consequence which none of the petitioners pressed for. 20. A further line of argument was attempted by one of the petitioners based on sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of the proviso to section 5(2A) namely that since the turnover of goods exempted from tax was excluded from the taxable turnover for purposes of turnover tax, the exemption granted by the first part of the notifications in question did service for this sub-clause, and turnover tax become non-leviable irrespective of whether the condition was satisfied or not. In other words, it was stated that an exemption became available under the first part of the notification itself read with sub-clause mentioned above and, therefore, the question of considering the second part of the notification did not arise at all. This argument only deserves to be rejected in the light of the fact that the exemption is only a conditional one, to be granted only on production of the declaration. 21. The contention that the production of form 25 declarations should suffice for availing the exemption is not sustainable. All that the declaration in form 25 testifies is that the purchaser is a dealer assessable to tax. It does not testify to the further requirements of those notifications that turnover tax is paid by the declarant. This contention is therefore overruled. 22. A further submission based on a circular issued by the Board of Revenue was to the effect that the purchaser from the agriculturist should be exempted from payment of turnover tax. Such an exemption exists in S.R.O. No. 715/88 but not in the others. The exemption should be strictly confined to the terms of the notification and cannot be amplified by any circulars. This contention does not therefore merit consideration. 23. There is a special point raised in O.P. No. 7582 of 1990 in which though the petitioner did not admit any liability for turnover tax, notices were issued in form No. 14D demanding tax and also threatening imposition of penalty. These notices exhibits P6 and P7 are on the face of them invalid as no demand under form No. 14D could be raised unless there is an admission of liability in the returns. These notices exhibits P6 and P7 are on the face of them invalid as no demand under form No. 14D could be raised unless there is an admission of liability in the returns. The notices are not sustainable and are liable to be withdrawn. 24. My conclusions therefore are : (a) The notifications S.R.O. Nos. 715, 716 and 717 of 1988 are valid in entirety. (b) If any dealer wants to avail of the benefit of exemption granted by these notifications, he has to produce the declaration in the form annexed to the notifications, but he may be permitted to prove the requisite fact by other satisfactory evidence produced for the purpose in lieu of the declaration. (c) The turnover tax is liable to be paid every month after the taxable turnover exceeds the prescribed minimum limit, at the rates applicable for the level of turnover reached. (d) The levy of turnover tax is constitutionally valid. (e) No demand in form No. 14D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, could be issued unless there is an admission of liability for turnover tax in the monthly returns filed. If the dealer does not admit any liability, the assessing authority has to follow the procedure prescribed for completion of an assessment and issue of demand in order to fasten the dealer with liability. The original petitions except O.P. No. 7582 of 1990 are accordingly dismissed. Exhibits P6 and P7 in O.P. No. 7582 of 1990 are quashed, but with liberty to the assessing authority to make an assessment in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions except O.P. No. 7582 of 1990 dismissed.