JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - For the assessment year 1989-90 entry Nos. 50 and 51 of Schedule I of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 deal with the levy of sales tax relating to coconut oil and coconut oil cake, both at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section, similarly both at 5 per cent. However explanation thereto is what is required to be considered in the present revision case. The said explanation is as follows : "Explanation. - Where a tax has been levied in respect of copra or coconut the tax leviable on coconut oil and coconut oil cake, produced out of such coconut or copra shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such copra or coconut." This Explanation clearly means that the tax leviable on coconut oil and coconut oil cake, produced out of coconut or copra in regard to which tax has been levied already, shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such copra or coconut. 2. In other words the statutory position itself is crystal clear with regard to the reduction. 3. The assessee is running an oil mill in the name and style of Messrs. Muttam Oil & Flour Mills. During the assessment year in question the petitioner was taxed to a total turnover of Rs. 1,74,387. When the assessment order (annexure 1) is perused, in paragraph 3 at page 8 of the compilation it is found that the assessee had collected sales tax and additional sales tax to the tune of Rs. 1,402.37 on the sale of coconut oil cake. It is then observed that coconut oil cake is exempted commodity for the year 1989-90 and hence the amount collected by way of sales tax and additional sales tax had to be forfeited to the Government. 4. However local sales of coconut oil is shown to be Rs. 15,85,935. Thereafter what appears are the figures relating to sales of coconut oil and oil cake produced from the purchase of copra leading to the estimate that followed as a result. It is as follows : "Local sales of coconut oil : Sales turnover of C.N. oil and oil cake produced from purchase turnover of copra for Rs. 1,58,494.75 estimated by adding 10 per cent G.P. Rs. It is as follows : "Local sales of coconut oil : Sales turnover of C.N. oil and oil cake produced from purchase turnover of copra for Rs. 1,58,494.75 estimated by adding 10 per cent G.P. Rs. 1,74,344.22 out of Rs. 1,74,344.22, the sales turnover of C.N. oil estimated; 1,74,344.22 x 9 ----------------- Rs. 1,56,909.60." 10 Thereafter is is also seen that the tax due on coconut oil is also worked out to be on Rs. 17,42,850, calculated at 5 per cent amounting to Rs. 87,142.50 as far as the coconut oil is concerned. This clearly means that the assessee is taxed with regard to the coconut oil and with regard to the coconut oil cakes, since it was an exempted commodity for the year 1989-90 the amount collected and having been forfeited to the Government has been ignored. The assessee approached the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode and before the Tribunal, inter alia, other points were also urged. However, before us the only aspect that is urged is with regard to the claim for rebate and estimate in regard thereto. With regard to this aspect, the Tribunal has reproduced the above explanation. The Tribunal has also referred to the contention of the assessee that the tax has been levied in respect of copra and therefore the tax leviable on coconut oil produced out of such copra should be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such copra. In the process of reasoning the Tribunal has also referred to the factual position that the sales turnover of coconut oil cake having been exempted by levy of tax by virtue of Government Notification SRO No. 132 of 1990. It is held that the assessee cannot claim reduction in the amount of tax leviable on local sales of coconut oil. The Tribunal has observed that such a claim for rebate could be considered only if the sales turnover coconut oil and coconut oil cake are assessed to tax. Our reference to the factual matrix specified hereinbefore from the assessment order would show that the tax with regard to coconut oil cake is forfeited to the Government and the tax with regard to the coconut oil has been ascertained without any consideration of reduction in regard thereto. 5. Our reference to the factual matrix specified hereinbefore from the assessment order would show that the tax with regard to coconut oil cake is forfeited to the Government and the tax with regard to the coconut oil has been ascertained without any consideration of reduction in regard thereto. 5. The first appellate authority - the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode considered the question of rebate in the most slipshod manner by observing that the rebate is not applicable here. The said authority has relied upon the Government letter No. 16575/83//91/TD dated October 3, 1990 to the effect that even in cases where coconut oil cake is exempted by notification, the rate of tax on copra will be 2 per cent when there is levy of tax on coconut oil produced. It is obvious that the question is of reduction and not of rate of tax, because whatever is lawfully paid towards coconut oil and coconut oil cake become entitled to be considered in the matter of reduction. Suffice it to note that the first appellate authority has not considered the question in the light of the explanation reproduced at the outset. 6. Although the situation is plain language of the explanation the Tribunal has referred to its own decision in the case of Ashoka Oil Mills v. State of Kerala in Tribunal Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 1991 dated May 17, 1991 adding that both the members deciding the present proceedings were parties to the earlier decision. In fact para No. 5 of the earlier judgment has been reproduced ad verbatim in the order of the Tribunal. The decision has also considered the plain reading of explanation to mean that a reduction in tax equal to the amount of tax levied on the purchase turnover of copra will be allowed from the tax leviable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on coconut oil and coconut oil cake produced out of such copra and that the said reduction would be available as referable to the coconut oil and coconut oil cake together which was produced from such copra as per the explanation. 7. 7. Having held so the Tribunal has proceeded to spell out an implied condition to the effect that in order to enjoy the benefit contemplated in the explanation coconut oil and the coconut oil cake produced out of such copra have to be assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and it is not enough that the coconut oil cake alone is assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The reasoning proceeds further that if the tax on coconut oil cake alone is considered the tax due on the sale of coconut oil cake will be less than the tax due on the purchase turnover of copra required for the production of a particular quantity of coconut oil cake. It is observed that the intention behind the newly added explanation can reasonably be presumed to give tax relief to those manufacturers of coconut oil and cake on the purchase turnover of copra, if the tax under Kerala General Sales Tax Act as specified in the First Schedule of the Act is leviable on the sale of coconut oil and cake produced out of such copra. 8. In other words the intention as understood by the Tribunal is that the reduction can come up for consideration if the tax is leviable on the sale of coconut oil as well as coconut oil cake. The Tribunal thought that the provision has to be construed strictly. The Tribunal has proceeded to consider the situation that tax on coconut oil cake was exempted during the year in question leading to the consequence that the amount collected by way of sales tax and additional sales tax would result in its forfeiture to Government. In view of this situation it appears the Tribunal seems to have observed that the tax leviable is not on the coconut oil cake alone, if reduction is to be considered, but it has to be leviable both on coconut oil and coconut oil cake. If this is not the situation reduction cannot be claimed for either one of the above. 9. In our judgment the approach of the Tribunal is wholly contrary to the letter and spirit of the language of the explanation. It is seen that the assessee had collected tax with regard to the coconut oil cake and it is found that the amount collected is forfeited to the Government. 9. In our judgment the approach of the Tribunal is wholly contrary to the letter and spirit of the language of the explanation. It is seen that the assessee had collected tax with regard to the coconut oil cake and it is found that the amount collected is forfeited to the Government. If the language of the explanation is understood it would be seen that what is required to be considered is the question of reduction. In out judgment the language is more than clear and it is not necessary as has been held by the Tribunal that both coconut oil and coconut oil cake should be subjected to levy of tax before considering the claim of reduction in regard thereto. Such a consideration is not possible in view of the situation that tax collected by the assessee with regard to coconut oil cake is forfeited to the Government. If it is forfeited to the Government, the situation will have to be understood for the purpose of consideration of benefit of explanation not in the manner in which the Tribunal has observed but it will have to be taken into consideration that the tax on the coconut oil would be no less relevant for reduction in the context, simply by virtue of the position that during the year in question tax on coconut oil cake is in the exempted category leading to the situation of forfeiture of amount to the Government with regard to the tax collected by the assessee in regard thereto. 10. Therefore the amount of tax at 5 per cent calculated at Rs. 87,142.50 would have to be considered for the benefit of the above explanation. 11. For the above reasons all the three orders (annexure I, II and III) get quashed and set aside and in this context the proceedings are remitted to comply the above explanation in the light of our above observations. Revision case succeeds accordingly. Petition allowed.