Judgment :- C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing T.R.C.No.336 of 2000 referred the case for decision by a Full Bench as it felt that the questions raised by the petitioner are of such importance that it should be decided by a Full Bench. In fact the Tribunal decided the case based on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner v. A. V. George & Co. Ltd., T.R.C.No.105 of 1998 reported in (2001) 9 KTR 107 the correctness of which was canvassed by the petitioner, which appears to be the reason why reference was made by the Division Bench. Since the questions raised in S.T.Rev. Nos.6 and 8 of 2004 are the same, as in T.R.C.No.336 of 2000, those cases are clubbed together and posted for disposal along with the referred T.R.C. Even though several questions are raised in the T.R.Cs. there is only one issue to be decided which is petitioners eligibility for exemption from turnover tax on the purchase turnover of rubber effected as agents, for outside-State principals. 2. Petitioners are acting as buying agents for purchase of rubber in Kerala for their principals located outside the State. Rubber purchased are dispatched outside the State and the petitioners are getting reimbursement of purchase price, sales tax borne by them and other expenses incurred and along with it commission. According to petitioners since commission received by the petitioners is below 1.5 per cent petitioners are entitled to exemption from turnover tax on the purchase turnover of rubber in terms of Notification S.R.O.No.1341/1987 dated 8.10.1987. The Tribunal following the reported decision of this Court above referred confirmed the disallowance of exemption on the ground that the collections by the petitioner which include reimbursement of sales tax, additional sales tax, surcharge, etc., exceeded 1.5 percent. It is this order of the Tribunal that is under challenge before us. 3. The questions raised are specifically against inclusion of sales tax, additional sales tax and surcharge along with commission and other charges based on which exemption was disallowed. According to the petitioners, the decision of this Court above referred based on which the Tribunal rejected the petitioners’ claim as such calls for reconsideration. 3. The questions raised are specifically against inclusion of sales tax, additional sales tax and surcharge along with commission and other charges based on which exemption was disallowed. According to the petitioners, the decision of this Court above referred based on which the Tribunal rejected the petitioners’ claim as such calls for reconsideration. The notification based on which exemption is claimed by the petitioner is extracted hereunder for easy reference: S.R.O.No.1341/87: In exercise of the powers conferred by the Government of Kerala, hereby make an exemption in respect of turnover payable under sub-s.(2A) of S.5 of the said Act, on the turnover of any goods which are bought or sold or supplied or distributed by any auctioneer, commission agent or any other mercantile agent subject to the condition that, for such sale, purchase, supply or distribution, the aggregate commission including all expenses charged or interest levied by such dealer shall not exceed one and a half per cent of such turnover of goods both from the purchasers and from the sellers. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.7.1987. 4. We have heard senior counsel Sri. Sarangan, appearing for the petitioners, and Special Government Pleader, Sri. Raju Joseph appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners contended that notification S.R.O.No.1341/1987 does not provide for inclusion of sales tax, additional sales tax and surcharge collected from the principals along with commission received to see whether such collections are in excess of the limit of 1.5 per cent provided under the notification for granting turnover tax exemption. He has also relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly that of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 137 STC 389, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nainital Bank,Ltd., 47 ITR 638, Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., (1992) 61 ELT 332 (SC) and contended that the decision of this Court relied on by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim calls for reconsideration. According to him, the payments received by the agents to be reckoned under the above notification do not take in sales tax, additional sales tax and surcharge. According to him, the payments received by the agents to be reckoned under the above notification do not take in sales tax, additional sales tax and surcharge. The Special Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the decision of this Court, the correctness of which is canvassed by the petitioners, is based on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Canara Workshop Ltd., 1994 KLJ (TC) 499, which is confirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore according to him, the decision lays down correct law and the Tribunal rightly followed it. He has also pointed out that the assessees are not entitled to exemption under S.R.O.No.716 of 1988, which is not considered by the Tribunal. 5. After hearing counsel on both sides in detail, and after going though the orders of the Tribunal, and that of the authorities below, we feel the Tribunal has committed a grave error in deciding the appeals without reference to the assessment order. Petitioners are admittedly the last purchasers of rubber within the State which are dispatched to their principals outside Kerala. All forms of natural rubber are items taxable under the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act at the point of last purchase in the State. Petitioners have accepted this position and paid sales tax on their purchase turnover. It is to be noted that soon after the introduction of turnover tax under S.5(2A) of the K.G.S.T. Act by Kerala Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1.7.1987, separate notification were issued granting exemption and refixing turnover tax on various items including rubber. Similarly a general notification was issued for auctioneers, commission agents and other agents to claim exemption. The first notification on turnover tax on rubber was S.R.O.No.715 of 1988 by which turnover tax on rubber was limited to the penultimate purchase point in the State, which is the purchase preceding the last purchase. This notification was in force only for a period from 1.7.1987 to 18.2.1988. However, another notification S.R.O.No.716/88 was issued fixing turnover tax on rubber at last purchase point which is applicable from 19.2.1988 onwards: Since the disallowance of turnover tax exemption as seen from the assessments is mainly based on this notification, we have to necessarily refer to this notification and hence it is extracted hereunder for easy reference: S.R.O.No.716/88. However, another notification S.R.O.No.716/88 was issued fixing turnover tax on rubber at last purchase point which is applicable from 19.2.1988 onwards: Since the disallowance of turnover tax exemption as seen from the assessments is mainly based on this notification, we have to necessarily refer to this notification and hence it is extracted hereunder for easy reference: S.R.O.No.716/88. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (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 turnover tax payable by dealers under sub-s.(2A) of S.5 of the said Act, on the turnover of rubber except at the last purchase point subject to the condition that any dealer who claims exemption on such turnover tax shall produce before the Assessing Authority concerned a declaration in the Form annexed to the notification from the dealer who had paid the turnover tax. This Notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 19th February, 1988. ANNEXURE Form of declaration to be furnished by a purchasing dealer for claiming exemption from turnover tax at other points. 1. I/We... (here enter the name and full postal address of the purchaser) dealer(s) in goods taxable at .the point of purchase in the State, have purchased goods of the description given below from Sri/Messrs. (here enter the name and full postal address of the seller(s)). 2. My/Our turnover for the year is not less than rupees fifty lakhs and I/we have paid turnover tax on the turnover of goods mentioned below. 3. My/Our registration certificate number is... (here enter R.C. No.) 4. I/We am/are registered dealer(s) on the rolls of the Sales Tax Office (here enter the name of the Sales Tax Office) and I/we have filed our returns for the month of (here enter the month previous to which the purchase relates) along with proof of payment of turnover tax due for the goods which I/We am/are liable to pay. (Also Form containing bill, details of quantity, value & turnover tax paid) From the above notification and S.R.O.No.715/88 it is clear that turnover tax on rubber was payable from 1.7.1987 to 18.2.1988 by the penultimate purchasers and from 19.2.1988 onwards by the last purchasers of rubber in the State. (Also Form containing bill, details of quantity, value & turnover tax paid) From the above notification and S.R.O.No.715/88 it is clear that turnover tax on rubber was payable from 1.7.1987 to 18.2.1988 by the penultimate purchasers and from 19.2.1988 onwards by the last purchasers of rubber in the State. Even to grant exemption to dealers of rubber at other points of purchase they have to prove payment of turnover tax by the dealer concerned by obtaining and producing declaration and details of payment of turnover tax issued by the dealer who paid turnover tax in the form prescribed under the notification. The validity of the above referred notifications pertaining to turnover tax on rubber and the notification on turnover tax pertaining to spices namely, ginger, arecanut, pepper, and the declarations annexed thereto were challenged in a batch of cases and this Court in the decision reported in K. V. Gangadharan v. Add/. Sales Tax Officer, (1993) 91 STC 80 held that the notifications and the declarations contained therein are valid and any dealer claiming exemption should produce declaration in terms of notification towards proof of payment of tax by the issuing ­dealer. This decision has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court and by the Supreme Court. Therefore the settled position is that a dealer claiming exemption from turnover tax on any item referred to in the above notifications which include rubber, should produce declaration in the Form prescribed under the notification, issued by the dealer who paid the turnover tax and exemption can be granted only on proof of payment of turnover tax by another dealer. 6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners were well aware of the notifications above referred on turnover tax on rubber and they have in fact produced some declarations under S.R.O.No.716/88 at least in the assessment completed for the year 1989-90. On going through the assessment orders in all the cases, we find exemption from turnover tax and levy of turnover tax on rubber were mainly considered and decided based on S.R.O.No.716/88, even though petitioners also claimed applicability of S.R.O.No.1341 of 1987 which is also considered and rejected in assessment. On going through the assessment orders in all the cases, we find exemption from turnover tax and levy of turnover tax on rubber were mainly considered and decided based on S.R.O.No.716/88, even though petitioners also claimed applicability of S.R.O.No.1341 of 1987 which is also considered and rejected in assessment. It is noticed from the findings of the Officer that the assessee not only did not raise any objection against the applicability of S.R.O.No.716 of 1988 but even produced some declarations issued under the notification least for 1989-90 to claim exemption from turnover tax, part of which was allowed by the Officer and the balance rejected. It is conceded and obvious from the assessments that the assessee is the last purchaser of rubber in the State for the purchases made for principals residing outside the State and sales tax is also paid on last purchases. Therefore the assessee being the last purchaser of rubber is liable to pay turnover tax from 19.2.1988 onwards by virtue of S.R.O.No.716/88. In fact petitioners who paid sales tax admitting themselves to be the last purchasers also liable to pay turnover tax at the point of last purchases under S.R.O.No.716/88 were entitled to issue declarations under the said notification to dealers from whom they purchased rubber and such dealers were entitled and would have been granted exemption from turnover tax based on declarations issued by them. The assessing officer in the assessment for 1989-90 expressed apprehension that the petitioners would have issued declarations to others leading to grant of turnover tax exemption of such dealers. In fact on the officer’s query, petitioners refused to confirm whether they have issued declarations in terms of the notification S.R.O.No.716/88 entitling other dealers to claim exemption. Even though under the definition contained in S.2(viii) of the KG.S.T. Act an auctioneer, Broker, commission agent, etc., are “dealers”, sales tax liability of the agent under the K.G.S.T. Act is co-extensive with that of principal. This is recognized in R.9(k)(i) and (ii) of the K.G.S.T. Rules which exempt an agent from payment of tax when principal pays tax and principal gets exemption when agent pays tax. This is a case where the petitioners have declared themselves as agents of the outside State principals, and they have paid sales tax on the last purchases of rubber without any contest. This is a case where the petitioners have declared themselves as agents of the outside State principals, and they have paid sales tax on the last purchases of rubber without any contest. Since petitioners are the last purchasers of rubber for the purpose of levy of sales tax under the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act, they cannot be otherwise for the purpose of payment of turnover tax which is also on the last purchases of rubber from 19.2.1988 onwards by virtue of S.R.O.No.716/88. In the assessments produced in S.T.Rev.Nos.6 and 8 of 2004 turnover tax liability on rubber is considered with specific reference to S.R.O.No.716 of 1988 and in the assessment in T.R.C.No.336 of 2000 also even though the notification as such is not referred, the reference to the ingredients of notification such as the point of levy of turnover tax and the date since when it is payable at last purchase point obviously means that Officer had in mind only S.R.O.No.716/88. When turnover tax exemption claimed was considered with reference to notification, S.R.O.No.716/88 and exemption was disallowed for want of valid declarations which is held to be mandatory by this Court in the decision above referred and confirmed by the Supreme Court, it was thoroughly wrong on the part of the Tribunal to have considered the appeals without reference to that notification but by referring to only S.R.O.No.1341 of 1987. 7. The Special Government Pleader argued that S.R.O.No.1341 of 1987 is not applicable to the petitioners as such even though there is no specific exclusion for dealers acting as buying or selling agents of rubber. On going through the Explanatory Note, we find the said notification was issued in the context of auction sales of tea, cardamom, etc. It is common knowledge and the facts are even borne out from many reported decisions that auction sales of tea and cardamom are conducted without the auctioneer physically handling the goods. The goods are stored in the godowns of the owners and only samples are sent to the auctioneers for conducting auction sales. The sales tax liability is also borne by the auctioneer or owner based on general instruction. issued by the Board of Revenue. The object of notification S.R.O.No.1341/87 is to exempt auctioneers, brokers; agents, etc., who conduct sales or purchases for owners of goods at low commission. The sales tax liability is also borne by the auctioneer or owner based on general instruction. issued by the Board of Revenue. The object of notification S.R.O.No.1341/87 is to exempt auctioneers, brokers; agents, etc., who conduct sales or purchases for owners of goods at low commission. This notification is not intended to fix liability or to exempt turnover tax on any commodity, which has to be considered with reference to S.5(2A) of the K.G.S.T. Act read with relevant notification applicable to the goods. As already pointed out by us, the petitioners did not raise any objection when the assessing officer considered turnover tax exemption based on notification S.R.O.No.716/88. Petitioners have without any dispute paid sales tax on their turnover of last purchases of rubber made for outside State principals and it is also admitted and is on record that the sales tax, additional sales tax, surcharge are reimbursed by the principals to the petitioners. We do not know on what basis the petitioners are demanding a different treatment for the purpose of levy, payment and reimbursement of turnover tax which is also payable by the last purchaser. On the face of it, and in view of the part exemption claimed and obtained by the petitioners in assessment based on declarations produced under notification S.R.O.No.716/88, we feel the whole exercise of claim of-exemption in appeals before the Tribunal merely based on S.R.O.No.1341/87 was only speculative, though they could not succeed. 8. We have already referred to R9(k)(i) and (ii) of the K.G.S.T. Rules where under tax liability is borne either by the principal or by agent as the case may be. The position is the same so far as turnover tax so is concerned, because all the provisions of the K.G.S.T. Act and Rules pertaining to sales tax are made applicable for levy and collection of turnover tax also under S.5(2A)(ii) of the Act. The arrangement of purchase or sale through agents or auctioneers does not affect incidence of turnover tax under S.5(2A) of the Act. So long as charging Section on turnover tax, namely, S.5(2A) read with relevant notification on goods remains unaffected, irrespective of business arrangement between the agents and principals, turnover tax liability and exemption on rubber has to be considered only based on notifications S.R.O.Nos.715 and 716 of 1988 and the Tribunal has erred in not considering the exemption based on the said notifications. 9. 9. In view of the foregoing observations and findings we are of the view that S.RO. No.1341/87 does not affect the levy of turn over tax on rubber at penultimate purchase point or at the last purchase point based on the above referred two notifications. The petitioners being dealers in rubber though as agents of outside principals are liable to pay turnover tax and exemption if any eligible has to be granted based on declarations produced under notifications S.R.O.Nos.715 & 716/88, which are upheld by this Court and Supreme Court. Since we find S.RO. No. 1341 of 1987 is not applicable for the purchase of rubber by the petitioners, there is no need for us to consider the questions referred to us and the correctness of the decision of this Court rendered earlier, as the is-sue is only academic so far as these cases are concerned. Therefore we decline to answer the questions raised in. the T.R.C. and S.T. Revs., but set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remand the cases to the Tribunal for considering the petitioners' claim of exemption on turnover tax based on S.R.O.Nos.715 & 716/88. T.R.C. and S.T. Revs, are disposed of as above.