JUDGMENT K. K. USHA, J. – The tax revision case, at the instance of the assessee, arises out of the order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A. No. 73 of 1995. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92. Following questions are raised for the decision of this Court : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that tax is leviable on the turnover of the assessee for the period from April 1, 1991 to July 31, 1991 in the light of entry 57 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the exemption notification which came into force from August 1, 1991 ? Is the Tribunal justified in law in taking the view in the present case that 'when reckoning the turnover of an assessee for a particular period, the liability of tax is to be determined on the basis of his turnover for the complete assessment year ?' (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Appellate Tribunal committed an error in relying on the decision of this honourable court in S. Koder Agencies v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 528 which was laid down in a different context altogether ?" 2. The relevant facts are as follows : Revision petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It is running a hotel. For the assessment year 1991-92, it claimed exemption on the turnover of cooked food amounting to Rs. 24,95,510 on the basis of a Notification S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991. The notification is issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its power under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessment was originally completed by the Sales Tax Officer fixing the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 41,80,208 and Rs. 1,41,320 respectively. Assessment was later revised under section 19. Assessing authority took the view that sales of cooked food for the year 1991-92 have been exempted from the levy of tax under S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991 only with effect from August 1, 1991. Therefore, while finalising the assessment, the officer took into consideration the turnover up to August 1, 1991 as taxable. He completed the assessment fixing Rs. 8,13,860 as escaped turnover. Therefore, while finalising the assessment, the officer took into consideration the turnover up to August 1, 1991 as taxable. He completed the assessment fixing Rs. 8,13,860 as escaped turnover. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. By order dated January 27, 1995, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Assessee thereupon filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal also agreed with the assessing authority as well as appellate authority on the above issue. This revision is directed against the finding of the Tribunal that even though turnover up to July 31, 1991 does not exceed the taxable limit, i.e., Rs. 20 lakhs, liability of tax is to be determined after considering the turnover for whole year. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in following the decision of this Court in S. Koder Agencies v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 528. That decision was rendered under section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act wherein liability is imposed for paying turnover tax. From the wording of section 5(2A)(i) itself, it was clear that the limit of Rs. 25 lakhs was fixed in respect of the total turnover in a year. On the other hand, under entry 57 of the First Schedule, it is not mentioned that the turnover of Rs. 25 lakhs and above in respect of hotels and/or restaurants, is the total turnover for "a year". Therefore, according to the assessee, for the purpose of granting exemption under Notification S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991, the turnover of the assessee for the period from April 1, 1991 to July 31, 1991 cannot be taken into consideration. Assessee placed reliance on another decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. K. P. Paper Products [1989] 74 STC 16 in support of his contention. In the above case, the question that arose was whether an assessee who is not liable to pay tax for a particular year, can be directed to pay surcharge in respect of very same year. In the above case, the question that arose was whether an assessee who is not liable to pay tax for a particular year, can be directed to pay surcharge in respect of very same year. This Court took the view that for the purpose of computing the eligibility for exemption in terms of Government notification, the assessing authority cannot issue a separate demand for the surcharge after allowing exemption in respect of tax and additional tax payable. If the amount of tax and additional tax computed is eligible for complete exemption, there cannot be a levy of surcharge for that year. 5. Learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the Revenue contended that the principle laid down in S. Koder Agencies v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 528 (Ker) is fully applicable in the present case also. He pointed out that the definition of the terms "turnover" and "year" under section 2(xxvii) and 2(xxx) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 read with rule 18 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 would clearly show that the liability to pay tax has to be assessed, taking into consideration the turnover for the entire financial year. If that be so, the turnover in respect of the hotel business of the assessee would be above Rs. 20 lakhs and the assessee can be granted exemption only with effect from August 1, 1991, namely, the date on which S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991 came into force. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [1996] 101 STC 1, learned Government pleader further contended that the provisions in a taxing statute granting exemption are to be construed strictly. Under these circumstances according to learned Government pleader, there was no error in the finding entered by the Tribunal. 6. Entry 57 of the First Schedule as it stood at the relevant time, reads as follows : "57. Cooked food including beverages not falling under entry 76A of this Schedule sold or served in, - (i) hotels and/or restaurants, the turnover in respect of which is twenty lakhs rupees and above; and (ii) bar attached hotels and/or restaurants." The relevant portion of S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991 reads as follows : "Exemption to specified goods S.R.O. No. 1003/91. Cooked food including beverages not falling under entry 76A of this Schedule sold or served in, - (i) hotels and/or restaurants, the turnover in respect of which is twenty lakhs rupees and above; and (ii) bar attached hotels and/or restaurants." The relevant portion of S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991 reads as follows : "Exemption to specified goods S.R.O. No. 1003/91. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 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 tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods specified below payable by persons or units with regard to their turnover, subject to the conditions and restrictions specified therein, namely :- 1. Tax on the sale of cooked food including beverages not falling under entry 76A of the First Schedule to the said Act sold or served in all hotels and restaurants other than bar attached or star hotels and restaurants…. This notification shall come into force on the 1st day August, 1991." Admittedly, the turnover of the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 would come to more than Rs. 20 lakhs. If that be so, it is liable to pay tax in view of the provisions contained in entry 57 of the First Schedule to the Act. It is also admitted that exemption from tax granted in respect of sale of cooked food including beverages sold or served in all hotels and restaurants other than bar attached and star hotels and restaurants, came into force with effect from August 1, 1991. It is also admitted that exemption from tax granted in respect of sale of cooked food including beverages sold or served in all hotels and restaurants other than bar attached and star hotels and restaurants, came into force with effect from August 1, 1991. The contention raised by the assessee is that since exemption has been granted with effect from August 1, 1991, the quantum of turnover of the assessee for the period from April 1, 1991 to July 31, 1991 and the turnover for the period August 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992 are to be separately computed for the purpose of examining the question whether the assessee is liable to pay tax at all under entry 57 of Schedule I. According to the assessee, the turnover for the abovementioned two periods are to be taken into account separately and if that be so, for the period from April 1, 1991 to July 31, 1991, its turnover being below Rs. 25 lakhs, there cannot be any liability to pay tax for that period also. 7. We find it difficult to accept the above contention. The term "turnover" is defined under section 2(xxvii) as follows : "(xxvii) 'turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer, either directly or through another, on his own account or on account of others, whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce, grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded from his turnover." There is no merit in the contention that since the word "year" is not seen used in the definition of" turnover", the financial year has no relevance at all in computing the turnover for the purpose of finding out whether the assessee would come within entry 57 or not. 8. Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is the charging section. It imposes a liability on every dealer whose total turnover for "an year" is not less than a stipulated amount. In respect of casual trader or agent of non-resident dealer, the liability to pay tax is on his taxable turnover of "that year", whatever be his total turnover for "the year". It imposes a liability on every dealer whose total turnover for "an year" is not less than a stipulated amount. In respect of casual trader or agent of non-resident dealer, the liability to pay tax is on his taxable turnover of "that year", whatever be his total turnover for "the year". Section 5A relates to levy of purchase tax. A reference to clause © of sub-section (1) of section 5A, sub-section (2) of section 5A, the proviso thereto and sub-section (3) would also make it clear that wherever "turnover" is mentioned, it is turnover for "the year". Even though, in the definition of the term "turnover", there is no reference to the period with respect to which it has to be computed, rule 18 is very clear that the assessee has to file a return showing the total turnover and taxable turnover for the preceding year and the amount by way of tax or taxes due on the taxable turnover during "the year". Since "year" is defined under section 2(xxx) as financial year, it is the duty of the assessee in this case to file a return showing the turnover for the whole year. It can claim that it has no liability to be assessed, only if it is able to show that it would come within the exempted category as per entry 57. That is, unless it is able to show turnover for the year is less than Rs. 20 lakhs, there is no way by which it can escape liability to pay sales tax for the period between April 1, 1991 to July 31, 1991. The dictum laid down by this Court in S. Koder Agencies v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 528 is clearly applicable in the present case. In the above case the provision contained under section 5(2A) came up for consideration. Section 5(2A) states that every dealer whose total turnover in an year exceeds Rs. 25 lakhs (later modified to Rs. 50 lakhs), shall pay turnover tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the turnover of goods coming under the First or Fifth Schedule to the Act. The turnover tax was levied only with effect from July 1, 1987 and for that purpose, the turnover for the period form April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987 had to be taken into account. The turnover tax was levied only with effect from July 1, 1987 and for that purpose, the turnover for the period form April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987 had to be taken into account. But, for the purpose of determining the total turnover of the dealer so as to find out whether he would come within the net of section 5(2A), turnover of the entire year should be reckoned. It is not the turnover between April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987 that has to be looked into for the above purpose. By applying the above principle, we have no hesitation to hold that the turnover for the whole year has to be taken into account to find out whether the assessee is liable to pay tax under entry 57 of the First Scheduler. 9. Surcharge is an increase on the tax payable by the dealer whose turnover exceeds the limit. The surcharge was not to be computed on the basis of the turnover. It was for this reason, in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. K. P. Paper Products [1989] 74 STC 16, this Court took the view that if the amount of tax and additional tax computed is eligible for complete exemption, there cannot be a levy of surcharge for that year. Thus, the above decision is of no help to the assessee in the present case. 10. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal has correctly placed reliance on the decision in S. Koder Agencies v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 528 (Ker) and it is justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on the turnover for the period from April 1, 1991 to July 31, 1991. The tax revision case therefore stands dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 620 of 1996 in T.R.C. No. 27 of 1996 dismissed. Petition dismissed.q