JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This tax revision case relates to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The assessee is a dealer in paddy and rice. The assessments for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were completed on July 13, 1990 and December 7, 1991 respectively. Later, the assessing officer was of the view that additional sales tax was chargeable, but that had escaped assessment and, therefore, he initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 19(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 by issuing notices dated August 17, 1992. Reassessments were completed on January 21, 1993. 3. The sole contention of the assessee is that the assessing officer was wrong in making reassessments applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P.) Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 106. In this authority, the Supreme Court clearly held that additional sales tax under the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978, could be levied on inter-State sales or purchases of goods in regard to which no notification has been framed under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, fixing a specific lower rate in the public interest. The cardinal principle of law is that the Supreme Court does not make law but it simply declares what the law was. The Supreme Court having held that additional sales tax could be levied, it follows that additional sales tax was chargeable from the assessee, which had escaped assessment. Upon escapement of additional sales tax which was chargeable from the assessee, the assessing officer was right in law in initiating reassessment proceedings. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of counsel for the assessee that the assessing officer misapplied the decision of the Supreme Court in Aysha Hosiery Factory (P.) Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 106 to the instant case. In the result, the tax revision case fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.