JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – These are two tax revision cases filed by the Assistant Secretary of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam against the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A. Nos. 755 and 756 of 1992. The assessment years concerned are 1985-86 and 1986-87. 2. The respondent in the revision cases is running a small-scale industrial unit. He was an assessee on the files of the Sales Tax Officer, Kothamangalam. The respondent's unit is eligible for exemption from payment of sales tax as per Notification. S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980. The final assessments of the respondent for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 were completed by the assessing authority as per orders dated October 20, 1987 and March 26, 1990. Though the respondent was eligible for exemption under the said notification for the aforesaid two years, the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 19,785.15 towards sales tax for the assessment year 1985-86 and a sum of Rs. 17,630.60 by way of sales tax for the assessment year 1986-87. The assessing authority in the assessments for 1985-86 and 1986-87 gave credit to these amounts in the assessment orders and did not adjust the tax thus paid from the eligible amount of tax exemption. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam issued notice dated May 15, 1991 under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 alleging irregularity in the assessments already completed and proposing to set aside the irregular assessments and to remand the cases to the assessing authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the assessee in his reply dated June 1, 1991 to the proposal the Deputy Commissioner set aside the assessment orders for 1985-86 and 1986-87 and remanded the cases back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. The reason given by the Deputy Commissioner in setting aside the assessment is extracted hereinbelow : "I have also examined the contention and verified the records. The S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 very clearly implies that 'tax if any collected by such units by way of tax on their sales shall be paid over to Government and the sales tax if any already paid by such units to Government shall not be refunded'. The S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 very clearly implies that 'tax if any collected by such units by way of tax on their sales shall be paid over to Government and the sales tax if any already paid by such units to Government shall not be refunded'. If the assessment is strictly based on the exemption certificate there is no question of giving credit or any other adjustment to the collected tax. Here, the collected tax should be paid over to Government and the entire tx assessed should be exempted from the total exemption as per the proceedings of the Industries Department. At the same time there is nothing that present an SSI unit is collecting some tax. Only condition is that the tax collected shall be paid over to Government. Thus there is double taxation on the same turnover. In this case the assessee has collected some tax during 1985-86 and 1986-87 and the tax so collected has been remitted to Government. At the same time S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 is silent on the matter of giving credit to the dealer on the tax collected and remitted. Thus this aspect requires a detailed examination of all the relevant facts of the case." 4. In appeal by the assessee the Departmental Member justified the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner that the assessing authority went wrong in giving credit for the tax collected and remitted is well-founded while the Member (Accounts) disagreed with the order of the Departmental Member and held that there is no justification for interfering with the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority. According to the Member (Accounts), since tax is collected and remitted by the assessee on the sales turnover for the two assessment years there is nothing to be given as exemption on that part of the turnover as exemption is called for only where something is due. According to him, since no tax was due there is no need for any exemption. The Chairman agreed with the order of the Member (Accounts) and accordingly in view of the majority decision the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. 5. According to him, since no tax was due there is no need for any exemption. The Chairman agreed with the order of the Member (Accounts) and accordingly in view of the majority decision the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the department strenuously contended that the Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 does not contemplate exclusion of the turnover in respect of which tax has been collected and remitted to the Government by the assessee while computing the amount of turnover for giving exemption from tax liability. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the notification only provides as a condition for exemption that the tax if any collected and remitted by such units by way of tax on their sales shall be paid over to the Government and that sales tax if any already paid by such units to Government shall not be refunded. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the assessing authority was not justified in giving credit to the tax collected and remitted by the assessee for the period during which the assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification. On that basis he submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was perfectly justified in cancelling the said assessment orders and remanding the same to the assessing authority for detailed consideration. The Special Government Pleader canvassed for acceptance of the findings of the Departmental Member in preference to the view taken by the majority. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the orders passed by the assessing authority in the instant case are perfectly in accord with the terms of the exemption Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 and that the Deputy Commissioner erred in surmising that the credit given to the tax collected and remitted by the assessee for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 is irregular and contrary to the terms of the exemption notification. The learned counsel further submitted that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by majority has rightly taken the view that the adjustment of the tax from the eligible amount of exemption due as per the certificate issued by the District Industries Centre arises only in a case where any amount is payable for the period during which exemption is available as per the certificate. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for dismissal of these tax revision cases. 7. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for dismissal of these tax revision cases. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee. S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 under which exemption is granted to new industrial units and small-scale industries in exercise of the powers vested in the Government under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as it stood during the relevant period reads as follows : S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980. ......... hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new industrial units under the small-scale industries for a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the said units subject to the conditions that the tax if any collected by such units by way of tax on their sales shall be paid over to Government and that sales tax, if any, already paid by such units to Government shall not be refunded : Provided that such units shall produce proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre declaring the eligibility of the units for claiming exemption from sales tax : Provided further that the cumulative sales tax concession granted to a unit at any point of time within this period shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit. Explanation. - For the purpose of this notification 'new industrial units under the small-scale Industries' shall mean undertakings set up on or after 1st April, 1979, and registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce as a small-scale industrial unit, but shall not include old industrial units under the small-scale industries closed down and reopened under a new banner and style of business, after 1st April, 1979." 8. For appreciating the issue involved it would be helpful to advert to the background of the notification under consideration. The forerunner of the aforesaid notification is the Government Order dated April 11, 1979. The reason for the grant of exemption to small-scale industrial units to be set up after April 1, 1979 was given in the said Government Order. For appreciating the issue involved it would be helpful to advert to the background of the notification under consideration. The forerunner of the aforesaid notification is the Government Order dated April 11, 1979. The reason for the grant of exemption to small-scale industrial units to be set up after April 1, 1979 was given in the said Government Order. It is stated in the Government Order that the question of offering some incentives by the State to attract new industries has been under consideration of the Government. A committee was therefore set up to study the various problems and submit a report. The committee then finalised its report on March 20, 1979. The government has considered the recommendations and suggestions of the committee in detail and they are pleased to approve the package of measures for promoting industrial development in Kerala. It is pursuant to the same that the Government issued order dated April 11, 1979 under which new industrial units under small-scale industries set up after April 1, 1979, will be exempted from the payment of sales tax for a period of five years from the date of production. It is this Government Order which has been varied by S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 extracted in paragraph 7 above. 9. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the aforesaid two Government Orders in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1. With reference to the Government Order dated April 11, 1979, the Supreme Court observed that under the said order, new small-scale units were invited to set up their industries in the State of Kerala and with a view to boosting of industrialisation, exemption from sales tax and purchase tax for a period of five years was extended as a concession and the five-year period was to run from the date of commencement of production. It was further observed that if in response to such an order and in consideration of the concession made available, promoters of any small-scale concern have set up their industries within the State of Kerala, they would certainly be entitled to plead the rule of estoppel in their favour when the State of Kerala Purports to act differently. It was further observed that if in response to such an order and in consideration of the concession made available, promoters of any small-scale concern have set up their industries within the State of Kerala, they would certainly be entitled to plead the rule of estoppel in their favour when the State of Kerala Purports to act differently. It is therefore clear that the Government Order dated April 11, 1979 is issued as an incentive for setting up new small-scale industrial units in the State of Kerala. The exemption from payment of sales tax is granted by way of a concession and it was for a period of five years from the date of commercial production. This exemption, it is clear, is given to new industries set up after April 1, 1979 to get over the initial difficulties and to attract customers. S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 issued in modification of the Government Order dated April 11, 1979 has limited this benefit to the tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new industrial units. In other words, the exemption available in respect of purchase tax payable by such units was taken away and further, the amount of exemption from sales tax was confined to the limits specified in the proviso thereto. In other respect S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 is very clear in regard to the benefit of exemption available to a small-scale industrial unit set up after April 1, 1979. It grants an exemption in respect of tax payable under the Act on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new SSI units. It is for a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the said units. It provides that the amount of such exemption will be limited to 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit and that this will be determined by the District Industries Centre concerned by issuing a certificate in this regard. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. K.P. Paper Products [1989] 74 STC 16 had occasion to consider the scope of Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. K.P. Paper Products [1989] 74 STC 16 had occasion to consider the scope of Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980. This Court after referring to the definition of "taxable turnover" in section 2(xxv) observed that under clause (e) of rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 all amounts for which goods exempted by a notification under section 10 are sold or purchased, as the case may be, are deductible subject to the terms and conditions, if any, for the exemption. It was further observed that the tax payable on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new industrial unit under the small-scale industries is exempted subject to the conditions specified under the notification and that what is exempted is only the tax payable and not the goods. It was further observed that therefore, the tax has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the statute on the turnover of the sale of such goods and the tax so computed has to be deducted from the aggregate amount of exemption, and that in computing the tax thus payable the liability of the assessee has to be determined. The Division Bench observed that the expression "tax concession" used in the proviso is significant and that "it signifies the benefit derived by the assessee by virtue of the notification in payment of tax". 11. The exemption available to the unit under the notification is subject to two riders, namely tax if any collected by the limit has to be paid over to the Government and tax if any already paid by the unit to the Government shall not be refunded. These riders only show that the assessee may during the pendency of the application for exemption bona fide collect tax on the turnover of sale of goods produced by them providing for a contingency and in such cases they should not be allowed to take advantage of the amount by appropriating the same and claim exemption in respect of that turnover. There is nothing in the notification, according to us, to show that such an assessee who had bona fide collected and remitted tax on the turnover of sale of goods produced and sold by them during the period during which they were entitled to exemption could lose the benefit of the exemption notification to that extent. According to us, such assessees can claim the benefit of the full amount of exemption available as per the eligibility certificate for the remaining period notified in the eligibility certificate if they have not collected any tax on the turnover of sale of goods produced by them during the said period. In other words, the assessing authority, according to us, was perfectly justified in giving credit to the amount of tax collected and remitted by the assessee during the period during which the assessee was eligible for exemption from payment of sales tax. As per the notification, the exemption is available in respect of the tax payable and not in respect of the tax assessed. According to the Deputy commissioner, the notification is silent about the adjustment of the amount of tax collected during the period of exemption and therefore, on a strict construction of the exemption notification the assessing authority was not justified in giving credit or any other adjustment to the collected tax. According to him, the collected tax should be paid over to the Government and the entire tax assessed should be deducted from the total amount of exemption as per the proceedings of the Industries Department. This is substance is the view taken by the departmental member. 12. It is not correct to say that the notification does not give any indication regarding the question as to whether the tax collected and remitted on the turnover of sale of goods effected for the period during which the exemption is available should be adjusted from the eligible amount of exemption or not. The notification, according to us, gives clear indication on this aspect. The proviso to the notification clearly refers to "tax concession". It signifies the benefit derived by the assessee by virtue of the notification in payment of tax. Reading the various ingredients of the said notification, it is clear that the tax concession is available for a period of five years. The proviso to the notification clearly refers to "tax concession". It signifies the benefit derived by the assessee by virtue of the notification in payment of tax. Reading the various ingredients of the said notification, it is clear that the tax concession is available for a period of five years. Since the amount of concession is limited to 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit as certified by the General Manager of the Industries Centre, the assessee can avail the benefit only to the extent fixed in the eligibility certificate for the five years' period commencing from the date of commencement of commercial production. An illustration is : An SSI unit is entitled to exemption under the notification for a period of five years from April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1990 of an amount of Rs. 90,000 as specified in the eligibility certificate issued by the industries department and if the tax payable as determined by the assessing authority for 1985-86 itself comes to Rs. 90,000 and if no tax has been collected and/or paid for the said period, it will be adjusted against the eligible amount of Rs. 90,000. Such assessee will be liable to pay tax on the sale turnover for the succeeding years notwithstanding the fact that exemption is available for a period of five years. Likewise, if the tax payable as determined by the assessing authority for 1985-86 is only Rs. 30,000, the balance amount will be carried forward to the next year and so on till the entire sum of Rs. 90,000 is exhausted. If, even after the tax payable for the assessment year 1989-90 is adjusted the entire sum of Rs. 90,000 is not exhausted, the balance amount will lapse. By the expression "tax concession" what is meant is very clear. It signifies the benefit derived by the assessee by virtue of the notification in payment of tax. If tax has been collected and remitted, no benefit is derived for that period. 13. From the above, it is clear, what the notification contemplates is that it is open to a dealer to avail the benefit of tax concession under the notification at any time within a period of five years from the date of commercial production. If tax has been collected and remitted, no benefit is derived for that period. 13. From the above, it is clear, what the notification contemplates is that it is open to a dealer to avail the benefit of tax concession under the notification at any time within a period of five years from the date of commercial production. As already stated, if the entire amount of liability is exhausted in the first year, from the second year onwards he has to pay tax. Likewise, if he has collected tax for the first two years from the date of commencement of the commercial tax for the first two years from the date of commencement of the commercial production on the ground that the eligibility certificate has not been issued to him he will be entitled to avail the tax concession for the remaining three years provided, he has not collected and/or remitted tax for the said period. This, according to us, is the purport of the notification. If that be so, there is no justification for the view that the petitioner will be denied the benefit of tax concession on the amount of tax collected and/or remitted by the petitioner during the period for which the exemption under the notification was available to him. 14. We are of the view that the majority decision of the Tribunal is perfectly in accord with the understanding of the above notification. The aforesaid view is also fortified boy a Circular No. 27 of 1993 dated December 31, 1993 issued by the Board of Revenue clarifying the point. The relevant portion of the circular issued by the Board of Revenue is extracted hereinbelow : "Sub : Sales tax exemption under industrial policy - Refusal by the assessing authorities of the full facilities - Regarding : It has come to the notice of the Board that certain assessing authorities are deducting the tax collected and paid over to Government by an industrial unit during the period of exemption from the total eligibility. The various notifications granting exemption to new industrial units/sick industrial units have been issued subject to the condition that sales tax, if any, collected shall be remitted to Government and that sales tax, if any, remitted shall not be refunded. The various notifications granting exemption to new industrial units/sick industrial units have been issued subject to the condition that sales tax, if any, collected shall be remitted to Government and that sales tax, if any, remitted shall not be refunded. The notifications do not contemplate deduction of tax collected and remitted from the total quantum of sales tax exemption provided period and monetary limits are satisfied. All the assessing authorities are therefore directed to strictly adhere to the conditions stipulated in the notifications and ensure that the notifications are honoured in their letter and spirit. The Deputy Commissioners will acknowledge the receipt of the circular and obtain acknowledgement from their subordinates." It is true that this circular is issued by the Board of Revenue only in 1993 mach after the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is also a fact that this circular was not available at the time when the Tribunal also decided the matter. The circular issued by the Board clearly clarifies that the notifications granting exemption do not contemplate deduction of tax collected and remitted from the total quantum of sales tax exemption provided period and monetary limits are satisfied. It is true that this circular was issued with reference to S.R.O. No. 499 of 1990, the material portions of which are substantially similar to the Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980. Section 3 of Act, sub-section (1A) thereof under clause (c) empowers the Board of Revenue to issue such orders, instructions and directions to such officers and persons as it may deem fit, for the proper administration of the Act. Further, sub-section (3) of section 3 provides that all officers and persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions of the officers superior to them. The said sub-section further provides that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be given so as to interfere with the discretion of Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the exercise of his appellate functions. It is clearly stated in the circular that all the assessing authorities are directed to strictly adhere to the conditions stipulated in the notifications and ensure that the notifications are honoured in their letter and spirit. It is also stated that the Deputy Commissioner will acknowledge the receipt of the circular and obtain acknowledgement from their subordinates. It is clearly stated in the circular that all the assessing authorities are directed to strictly adhere to the conditions stipulated in the notifications and ensure that the notifications are honoured in their letter and spirit. It is also stated that the Deputy Commissioner will acknowledge the receipt of the circular and obtain acknowledgement from their subordinates. As already stated, though this circular is not issued with reference to S.R.O. 968 of 1980 and though it is issued in the context of S.R.O. 499 of 1990 only on March 31, 1990, the said circular clearly shows how the notification on the aspect in question is understood by the authorities under the Statute. On a conspectus of the provisions of the Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 and the understanding of the notification granting sales tax exemption to the small-scale industrial units contained in Circular No. 27 of 1993, we hold that the majority of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has correctly approached the question and arrived at the correct conclusion. There is no merit in these revisions. The revision cases are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.