JUDGMENT K. P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, J. - Petitioner in these tax revision cases is doing business in coconuts. We are concerned with the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. For the assessment year 1978-79 he filed return in form No. 8 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and claimed exemption for the inter-State sale of coconuts. The assessing authority completed the assessment under the Kerala General sales Tax Act and the purchase turnover relating to inter-State sale of coconuts was granted exemption. The purchase turnover of coconuts was Rs. 4,52,984 and the sale turnover was Rs. 5,73,512. The assessment was completed on July 28, 1979. On the same day the assessing authority completed the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, levying tax at 3.3 per cent on the inter-State sales. Thereafter the assessing authority noticed that the turnover was assessed at a low rate and proposed to assess the turnover at 6.6 per cent. This was objected to by the assessee. According to him tax is livable only at the rate of 3 per cent. Rejecting the contentions of the assessee the assessment was completed. Tax was levied at 6.6 per cent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Quilon, on appeal upheld the revised assessment. The matter was carried in second appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal but that appeal also was dismissed. That order of the Tribunal is assailed in T.R.C. No. 76 of 1992. 2. The other tax revision case relates to the assessment year 1979-80. During that year the petitioner had effected inter-State sale of coconuts amounting to Rs. 7,16,000. The assessing authority levied tax at 6.6 per cent which is twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of goods inside the State. The contention of the assessee that inter-State sales of coconuts could be assessed only at the lower rate of 3 per cent by virtue of the provision contained in section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act was not accepted. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Sales Tax Officer to assess the petitioner at the rate of 3 per cent. The matter was taken in second appeal by the Revenue before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated May 20, 1988, reversed the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the assessing officer. Hence the revision T.R.C. No. 77 of 1992. The matter was taken in second appeal by the Revenue before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated May 20, 1988, reversed the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the assessing officer. Hence the revision T.R.C. No. 77 of 1992. 3. Since the questions of law raised in both these revisions are the same they were heard together. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Senior Government Pleader Shri V. C. James for the Revenue. 4. Two points are seen to have been canvassed before the Tribunal. They are : (i) Whether the assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act ignoring the Government notification issued in S.R.O. No. 350/65 is sustainable in law ? and (ii) What is the rate at which the turnover has to be assessed ? On both these issues the Tribunal entered a finding against the assessee. On hearing the submissions on both sides we see no error of law in the order of the Tribunal. 5. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that tax should have been levied only at the lower rate of 3 per cent under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 8 of the Act deals with rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. A classification is made in that section in respect of inter-State sales to Government on prescribed forms, inter-State sales made by a dealer to a registered dealer other than the Government of goods specified in sub-section (3) of that section and inter-State sales other than these categories. A further classification is made in sub-section (2) between inter-State sales of declared goods and sale of goods other than declared goods. In the case of declared goods the tax payable by a dealer on his turnover in relation to sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1) of section 8 shall be calculated at twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State. In the case of goods other than declared goods the tax shall be calculated at the rate of 10 per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State whichever is higher. In the case of goods other than declared goods the tax shall be calculated at the rate of 10 per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State whichever is higher. It is further provided in sub-section (2) that for the purpose of making any such calculation under that sub-section any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State notwithstanding that he may not be so liable under that law. In relation to sale of goods not falling within sub-section (1), viz., goods sold to the Government on prescribed forms and sold to a registered dealer other than Government of the goods specified in sub-section (3) of the Act, tax has to be levied under sub-section (2). 6. A concession is seen given in sub-section (2A) of section 8. That sub-section reads : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods." 7. The object of this sub-section appears to be to grant exemption in respect of sales of any goods if they are wholly exempt from tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State and to make such sales chargeable at a lower rate when such transactions are chargeable to tax at a rate lower than 4 per cent under the sales tax law of the State. But the sub-section makes it clear that it is not applicable in the case of declared goods for which necessary provision is made in section 8(2)(a). This is manifested from the non obstante clause in that sub-section which reads "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section". On a reading of the various sub-sections contained in section 8 it is thus clear that the tax payable by a dealer on his turnover in the case of declared goods other than sale of goods falling within sub-section (1) shall be calculated at twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State. That what has been sold is declared goods is not disputed. Petitioner has no case that the goods were sold to a registered dealer. The sales were not supported by form "C" declarations. The Tribunal has not therefore committed any error in finding that the rate of tax leviable is twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the State of Kerala. The finding that sub-section (2A) providing for exemption or payment of tax at a lower rate does not cover the transactions falling under section 8(2)(a) is therefore justified and does not call for interference. 8. For the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on purchase of coconuts is 3 per cent. The tax which was earlier levied at the rate of 4 per cent was reduced to 3 per cent with effect from August 30, 1975, by G.O.Ms. No. 104 of 1974 dated August 30, 1975 (S.R.O. No. 760/75). Inclusive of surcharge tax payable will be at the rate of 3.3 per cent. The levy of tax at twice the rate under section 8(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act is therefore perfectly in order. 9. No. 104 of 1974 dated August 30, 1975 (S.R.O. No. 760/75). Inclusive of surcharge tax payable will be at the rate of 3.3 per cent. The levy of tax at twice the rate under section 8(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act is therefore perfectly in order. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that Government Notification S.R.O. No. 350/65 is not applicable to the case is also challenged by revision petitioner. This notification as observed by the Tribunal seeks to exempt the turnover from sales tax assessment only in case where tax has been levied and collected in respect of purchase of coconuts under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The notification only says that in respect of declared goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act shall be payable by any dealer where tax has been levied and collected in respect of the sale or purchase of such declared goods under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act subject to certain conditions. No tax has been levied under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act in the present case. No error was therefore committed by the Tribunal in finding that the notification is not applicable to the present case. In the result both the revision petitions are found to be devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed but without costs. Petitions dismissed.