DATTU, J. ( 1 ) AN interesting question of law would arise for our consideration and decision in this revision petition. The question is, whether the turnover tax paid by the assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957 ('kst Act' for short), can he be claiming deductions under the provisions of Karnataka Agricultural Income tax Act, 1957 ? ( 2 ) THE basic facts are the assessee is a Public Limited Company. It has large extent of coffee plantation. For the assessment year 2001-2002, the assessee had filed its return of income before the assessing authority and had claimed deductions of the turnover tax paid by it as a 'trader' under the provisions of KST Act. The assessing authority, after issuing a proposition notice and after considering the objections filed by the assessee, has rejected the ctaim of the assessee. The assessee had unsuccessfully carried the matter before the first appellate authority as well as before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short ). Having failed before all the authorities, the assessee is before us in this revision petition. ( 3 ) SRI Ramabhadran, Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee would contend, that all the authorities under the Act as well as the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee in so far as the deductions claimed while computing the tax payable under the KST Act. In aid of his submissions, the Learned Counsel has taken us through the provisions of Sec. 5 (1) (a) (ii) of the Karnataka agricultural Income Tax Act. ( 4 ) SMT. Sujatha, Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent justifies the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Act as well as by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) IN order to answer the issue that we have raised for our consideration and decision, the provisions of Sec. 5 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, ('act' for short)requires to be noticed. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under "sec. ( 5 ) IN order to answer the issue that we have raised for our consideration and decision, the provisions of Sec. 5 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, ('act' for short)requires to be noticed. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under "sec. 5: Computation of Agricultural Income :- (1)The Agricultural Income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely: (a) any sums paid in the previous year on account of - (i) Land revenue, local rates and cesses and municipal taxes in respect of the land from which the agricultural income is derived; and (ii) Any excise duty or tax as may be prescribed in respect of the agricultural produce from such land ;" ( 6 ) SECTION 5 of the Act speaks of computation of 'agricultural income'. The agricultural income of a person requires to be computed under sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 of 'the Act, after granting certain deductions as specified in clauses (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act, such as, amounts paid towards land revenue, local rates, cesses, municipal taxes in respect of the land from which an agricultural income is derived; and any excise duty paid or tax paid in respect of the said agricultural produce. ( 7 ) THE assessee, admittedly, had paid turnover tax and had claimed deductions under Sec. 5 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The claim of the assessee is rightly rejected by the authorities under the Act as well as by the Tribunal, for the reason, what is permissible deduction under sec. 5 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act is any excise duty or tax paid in respect of an agricultural produce, in the instant case, what has been paid by the assessee is turnover tax on his turnover under the provisions of the kst Act and not a tax paid in respect of any agricultural produce. If this distinction is kept in view, in our opinion, all the authorities under the Act as well as the Tribunal are justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in any one of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act and also by the Tribunal. Therefore, interference with those orders is not called for. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in any one of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act and also by the Tribunal. Therefore, interference with those orders is not called for. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision petition is rejected. Ordered accordingly.