JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - The petitioner is running a small-scale industrial unit which was set up on January 10, 1980 and therefore entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act) for a period of five years from January 10, 1980 to January 9, 1985. Accordingly the petitioner was given the benefit of the exemption based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1. The petitioner claims similar exemption of his turnover during the period under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act) as well. The petitioner was denied exemption, and he went up in appeal right up to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that this claim for exemption under the CST Act made by the petitioner was without merits (see exhibit P7). The petitioner does not say in his writ petition whether he challenged this order in revision before this Court. A copy of the Tribunal's order is not produced along with the writ petition, though that is very important, but it appears the assessments were remitted to the assessing authority for consideration of some other claim under section 8A of the CST Act. The assessments were thereafter completed afresh on August 2, 1993 and copies of those orders are exhibits P1 to P5. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition, exhibit P6, before the assessing authority, stating that his turnover from January 10, 1980 to January 9, 1985 was exempt totally under the CST Act and therefore he was entitled to refund of the tax paid which he alleged, had been illegally collected. That application was rejected by the assessing authority by the proceedings, exhibit P7, dated September 30, 1993, This original petition is filed claiming that the petitioner had paid tax for these years under mistake of law, that the mistake of law became apparent only recently when the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 473; (1993) KLJ (Tax Cases) 275. Petitioner therefore states that the orders, exhibits P1 to P5, should be quashed and the amount collected thereunder refunded. 3. I do not find any basis for this claim. Petitioner therefore states that the orders, exhibits P1 to P5, should be quashed and the amount collected thereunder refunded. 3. I do not find any basis for this claim. The question of claiming refund as per the decision in Hindustan Paper Corporation's case [1993] 89 STC 473 (SC); (1993) KLJ (Tax Cases) 275 (assuming that it applies) will arise only if the petitioner was labouring under a mistake of law when he made payment of the tax. The facts actually point to the contrary. It is seen from the proceedings, exhibit P7, of the assessing authority rejecting the claim for refund that the petitioner had claimed even on the earlier occasion, before the Appellate Tribunal that his turnover was exempt from payment of tax under the CST Act by virtue of the Government order exempting the turnover of such small-scale industrial units set up after April 1, 1979. That was rejected by the Tribunal. That order dated January 18, 1988, has become final. (I gathered this date from exhibits P1 to P5, fresh assessment orders). This is therefore a case where the petitioner knew about the exemption and claimed it, but failed in convincing the authorities about it. He did not challenge the order of the Tribunal and allowed it to become final, though the Tribunal held as a matter of law that he was not entitled to any such exemption. (I gathered this information from the proceedings, exhibit P7, as the petitioner has, for some reason, refrained from producing this order of the Tribunal). This is therefore a case where the petitioner was not labouring under any mistake of law, on the other hand, he was fully conscious of his rights and put them forward before the authorities. He pursued the matter right up to the Tribunal and lose before it. The petitioner cannot therefore lay claim to a cause of action on an alleged mistake of law suffered by him at the time he made payment of the tax due under the CST Act. When he was fully conscious of his rights and urged his points and lost, it cannot be said that he was labouring under a mistake of law. This is not therefore a case to which section 72 of the Contract Act could be applied. When he was fully conscious of his rights and urged his points and lost, it cannot be said that he was labouring under a mistake of law. This is not therefore a case to which section 72 of the Contract Act could be applied. The petitioner cannot therefore claim refund at this distance of time based on the decision in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. [1993] 89 STC 473 (SC); 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 275. 4. The writ petition is defective for the reason that the petitioner who has to get the order of the Appellate Tribunal quashed in order to get relief, has not sought any such relief. He has not produced copy of the Tribunal's order; nor has he sought any relief regarding it. The Tribunal is not even made a party to this writ petition. For all these reasons I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The original petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.