JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard the learned Government Pleader. 2. These tax revision cases raise a common question for consideration whether under G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/TD dated August 31, 1988, concessional rate of tax at 3 per cent shall continue. The learned Government Pleader has not shown to us that the said G.O. was withdrawn by the Government or modified. Unless the G.O. is withdrawn or modified, that would continue to remain in force. This controversy earlier also came up before this Court and then a learned single Judge of this Court in Thamarappally Rubber Products v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1994] 94 STC 178 held that it could be seen from the order that the Government had issued orders to the effect that the sales tax on finished rubber goods had been reduced to 3 per cent. There was no justification for the State to contend that this notification had not been issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Therefore, the liability of the petitioner was only to pay tax at 3 per cent on finished rubber products from factories in Kerala. The Government Pleader further submits that the said decision of the learned single Judge (See [1994] 94 STC 178 (Ker)) was affirmed by a division Bench on appeal. This being so, we do not see any patent illegality in the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. These revision cases are, therefore, dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.