JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The petitioner is a dealer in plywood, hardboard, etc. It is an assessee on the files of the first respondent. The petitioner has filed this O.P. for a declaration that the point of last sale in the State in relation to goods falling under Fifth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is not liable to be taxed under the Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 published in G.O.(P) No. 176/92/TD dated October 27, 1992. The petitioner has also sought for quashing exhibit P2 assessment order and all consequential proceedings. 2. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1992-93 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was completed by the first respondent by order dated January 28, 1994 (exhibit PI) and it is stated that it has paid the tax and surcharge demanded. Exhibit P2 is the revised assessment order dated March 15, 1997 under section 19 of the Act, passed by the first respondent after three years from the date of the original assessment on the ground that the turnover relating to certain goods escaped assessment of turnover tax to the tune of Rs. 22,078. It is stated that the said order was passed disregarding the objection filed by the petitioner. The dispute in this case is regarding the exigibility to turnover tax. Originally turnover tax was payable only by second sellers not liable to tax. It was later made payable also by dealers whose total turnover exceeded Rs. 50,00,000 at all points of sale or purchase of goods coming under the First and Fifth Schedules. The Government then decided to restrict the levy of turnover tax on the taxable turnover of sales on the first sale point of goods received on branch transfer only. For the said purpose the Government issued Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 in G.O. (P) No. 176/92/TD dated October 27, 1992. This notification was understood by the dealers as well as the assessing authorities to the effect that the turnover tax was leviable only on the sales of goods received on branch transfer or consignment from outside the State, and that all other taxable sales are exempt from levy of turnover tax. The notification restricted the levy of turnover tax to goods brought and sold from outside the State only, which aspect has been made clear in the explanatory note of the notification. The notification restricted the levy of turnover tax to goods brought and sold from outside the State only, which aspect has been made clear in the explanatory note of the notification. Though the notification is dated October 27, 1992 it has been given retrospective effect from April 1, 1992 as per Notification S.R.O. No. 365/93 issued in G.O. (Ms) No. 38/93/TD dated March 9, 1993. 3. In the case of the petitioner, the original assessment for the year 1992-93 was completed as per exhibit PI assessment order without imposing turnover tax accepting the clear meaning and intent of the notification. It is stated that exhibit P2 assessment order was passed taking contrary view that the notification is not applicable to goods sold at the last sale point falling under the Fifth Schedule, which according to the petitioner is contrary to the decision of this Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax [1996] 101 STC 28. According to the petitioner, the commodity dealt with by it falls under this Schedule and tax is exigible on the two points mentioned therein, but by virtue of the notification no turnover tax is leviable on the turnover of such goods, as is evident from the notification read with the explanatory note. It is also stated that the levy of turnover tax in such case is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India being unreasonable and discriminatory. It is stated that the first respondent has passed exhibit P2 order based on the directions of the audit wing of the Accountant-General without any authority. It is also pointed out that the entire levy of turnover tax was abolished with effect from 1993-94 onwards. It is stated that the petitioner has filed this O.P. since the interpretation of the notification is involved though a remedy by way of appeal is provided against exhibit P2 order before the statutory authorities. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that the original assessment for the year 1992-93 was completed as per order dated January 28, 1994 (exhibit PI) fixing the total turnover of Rs. 24,66,434.87 and taxable turnover of Rs. 70,78,470 against the conceded total turnover of Rs. 2,20,53,437.87 and Rs. 69,71,699.04 respectively. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that the original assessment for the year 1992-93 was completed as per order dated January 28, 1994 (exhibit PI) fixing the total turnover of Rs. 24,66,434.87 and taxable turnover of Rs. 70,78,470 against the conceded total turnover of Rs. 2,20,53,437.87 and Rs. 69,71,699.04 respectively. It is stated that the turnover tax at Y2 per cent was also levied under section 5(2A)(i)(g) read with S.R.O. No. 1401/92 on the turnover of second sale of goods coming under First Schedule Rs. 41,60,980.96 and sales tax collected on the first sale of goods coming under First Schedule Rs. 2,54,621.73 totalling Rs. 44,15,602.69. It is stated that as per S.R.O. No. 1401/92, the turnover of goods coming under the Fifth Schedule at the point of last sale was not exempted from the levy of turnover tax and that the tax payable on the turnover at the point of first sale coming under section 5(2A)(i)(g) was exempted. It is further stated that the turnover of plywood and laminated sheet at the point of last sale was not brought to the levy of turnover tax at the time of original assessment and therefore the escaped turnover was sought to be assessed to tax under section 19 of the Act. It is further stated that notice under section 19 of the Act was issued proposing to levy turnover tax at the rate of 0.5 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 44,15,602.69, which was firmly objected by the petitioner. Exhibit P2 reassessment order was issued levying turnover tax on the said amount also. Respondents have also stated that the objects and purpose of the notification are clear and there is no scope for any interpretation. The Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 is free from any ambiguity and therefore no question of interpretation does arise. It is also stated that the judgment in Associated Cement's case [1996] 101 STC 28 (Ker) relates to the levy of turnover tax on the turnover of goods received by way of branch transfer and consignment sales, that the attack was on the ground of article 304 of the Constitution and that this Court has not interpreted the meaning of the notification though the petitioner made a prayer in that regard. It is stated that the said judgment considered only the part that related to the levy of turnover tax on the first sale of goods received by way of branch transfer in the background of article 304 of the Constitution. The contention based on discrimination was also denied by stating that when turnover tax is levied on the last sale of good,, coming under the Fifth Schedule of the Act, there is no violation of article 304 of the Constitution as contended by the petitioner. It is also stated that the impugned assessment order was passed not on the basis of the view taken by the audit wing of the Accountant-General and that it has been passed on an independent application of mind. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 read with the explanatory note makes it clear that all categories of taxable goods except goods received on consignment or branch transfer are exempt from turnover tax. Learned counsel submitted that though initially the turnover tax is leviable at all points of sale or purchase of goods coming under the First and Fifth Schedules to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the Government have decided to restrict the levy of turnover tax on taxable turnover of sale of goods received on branch transfer only. Learned counsel submitted that while construing the notification, the rule of reasonable construction must be applied, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Good year India [1990] 76 STC 71; [1991] 188 ITR 402. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court in Associated Cement's case [1996] 101 STC 28 held that even the category of branch transfer retained as taxable by the notification has been held to be non-taxable. He further submitted that it is a well-recognised principle that tax laws should be interpreted strictly and when there is confusion, the interpretation should go in favour of the assessee. He submitted that the first respondent was not justified in passing exhibit P2 reassessment order levying turnover tax. 6. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. He submitted that the last sale point of plywood and the tax collected thereon was omitted to be considered for levy of turnover tax and the said turnover was brought to tax by reassessment under section 19 of the Act. 6. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. He submitted that the last sale point of plywood and the tax collected thereon was omitted to be considered for levy of turnover tax and the said turnover was brought to tax by reassessment under section 19 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that exemption under S.R.O. No. 1401/92 was available only in respect of turnover tax payable on the turnover at the point of first sale in this State by dealers coming under sub-clause (g) of clause (i) of sub-section (2A) of section 5 of the said Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the notification as contended by the petitioner warranting any interpretation. He submitted the exhibit P2 reassessment order is perfectly in order and does not call for any interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Government issued Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 restricting the exemption in respect of the turnover tax payable on the turnover at the point of first sale in the State by dealers coming under sub-clause (g) of clause (i) of sub-section (2A) of section 5 of the said Act, except on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and on branch transfer. The explanatory note to the said notification stated that as per sub-clause (g) of clause (i) of sub-section (2A) of section 5 of the Act the turnover tax is payable by the dealers whose total turnover exceeds Rs. 50,00,000 at all points of sale or purchase of goods coming under the First and Fifth Schedules to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and that the Government have decided to restrict the levy of turnover tax on the taxable turnover of sales on the first sale point of goods received on branch transfer or consignment basis only. But for the exemption granted under Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 the petitioner would have been liable to pay the turnover tax on the entire turnover at all points of sale. It is only by virtue of the said notification that exemption from turnover tax has been granted on the turnover at the point of first sale in the State by dealers coming under section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act excepting on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer. It is only by virtue of the said notification that exemption from turnover tax has been granted on the turnover at the point of first sale in the State by dealers coming under section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act excepting on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer. The notification clearly says that the exemption is in respect of the turnover tax payable on the turnover at the point of first sale in the State by dealers coming under section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act and not in respect of any other point of sale. It is pertinent to note that though section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act refers to dealers of goods coming under the First Schedule or the Fifth Schedule, whose total turnover in a year exceeds Rs. 50,00,000, the notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 does not at all refer to goods referred to under the Fifth Schedule. The notification only refers to the turnover tax payable on the turnover at the point of first sale in the State. So the exemption can be said to have been given only in respect of the turnover of goods taxable at the first sale point in the State and not to goods in respect of any other point of sale. The petitioner wants to understand the Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 to mean that the Government exempted the liability to pay turnover tax on the turnover of goods liable to tax at the hands of the assessee. In other words, the liability, according to the petitioner, to pay turnover tax under section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act except on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and/or branch transfer arises only on the turnover of non-taxable goods. It is to be noted that prior to April 1, 1992 the position was that the liability to pay turnover tax was only in respect of non-taxable goods. This position was varied by the Kerala Finance Act, 1992 by amending section 5(2A)(i)(g) of the Act. Probably the Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 was issued to bring the position to the State prior to April 1, 1992 to make the liability to turnover tax at all points other than the taxable point. But the Government in the notification sought to make the exemption only in respect of first point sale without any reference to the taxable event. Probably the Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 was issued to bring the position to the State prior to April 1, 1992 to make the liability to turnover tax at all points other than the taxable point. But the Government in the notification sought to make the exemption only in respect of first point sale without any reference to the taxable event. The question of seeking the aid of explanatory note, etc., arises only when there is ambiguity in the provision. Since the notification is very clear, there is no question of any interpretation of the scope of the notification with reference to the explanatory note or its background. It is now well-settled that exemption notifications have to be strictly construed and in that view there is no question of applying the principle that in tax matters if two views are possible, that view which favours the subject must be adopted. 8. Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/92 was questioned in a batch of writ petitions before this Court. The main challenge in the said writ petitions were against the imposition of tax on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment and on branch transfer, as being in violation of the provisions of articles 301 and 304(a)(b) of the Constitution of India. A decision of the Division Bench in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. is reported in [1998] 108 STC 219 (Ker); (1997) 1 KLT 802 whereby the decision of a learned single Judge reported in Associated Cement's case [1996] 101 STC 28 (Ker) was affirmed. The said decision according to me has no relevance so far as the question involved in this case is concerned. 9. Having considered the matter on all angles, I am of the view that the first respondent has rightly understood the scope and content of the notification while passing exhibit P2 reassessment order. I do not find any illegality in the said order. There is no merit in this O.P. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 13669 of 1997 in O.P. No. 7698 of 1997 dismissed. Petition dismissed.