R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) AT our instance, Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Additional government Advocate is to accept notice for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE appellant supplies fabricated steel items like windows grills and door frames to M/s Karnataka Land Army Corporation, bangalore (for short, 'm/s KLAC' ). The levy of tax at 4% is made over by the assessee in the light of issue of Notification in terms of section 8a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the Act' ). The assessment Order was passed by the authority, accepting the applicability of the conditional notification. Thereafter, those orders were reopened under Section 12a of the Act by the Deputy commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Notice was issued. The matter was heard. An adverse order was passed for payment of enhanced sales tax by the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal. The Appellate authority allowed the appeals. Noticing allowance of appeal, the revisional authority issued notice in terms of Section 22 ( 1) of the Act. The matter was heard. After hearing, the revisional authority has chosen to accept the order passed in terms of Section 12aof the Act. The appellate Authority reversed the order of the revisional authority. Therefore, the assessee is before us in this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri G. Rabinathan, Learned Counsel for the appellant. He would essentially raise three contentions. The first contention is that M/s KLAC is a Governmental Department and that therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Notification dated 30-3-1996 as modified by the Notification dated 30-3-2002 in terms of notification under Section 8a of the Act. ( 5 ) RE-CONTENTION No. 1 : According to the appellant assessee, m/s KLAC is the Government Department and hence, concession is available to the appellant in terms of the notification issued u/s. 8a of the Act. In the light of the submission, we are required to consider as to whether M/s KLAC is a Government department for the purpose of tax concession. KLAC, no doubt, has some support at the hands of the Government and that by itself would not give a status of the government department for the purpose of concessional notification issued u/s 8aof the Act. KLAC, no doubt, has some support at the hands of the Government and that by itself would not give a status of the government department for the purpose of concessional notification issued u/s 8aof the Act. In fact, this very issue is fully covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in INDIAN STEEL ROLLING mills vs THE STATE OF MADRAS. The Madras High Court has ruled that "the Hyderabad Housing Board is not a department of the Government and, therefore, if 'd' form declarations have been issued by the Board they would not be in order and would not entitle the sellers to get the benefit of the concessional rate of tax". After noticing the material facts, we are of the view that it cannot be said that KLAC is a Government department as sought to be argued before us. We find no acceptable reasons for our interference in the case on hand. ( 6 ) RE. Contention No. 2: Section 12aof the Act would provide for "assessment of escaped turnover". The said section reads as under: "12a. Assessment of escaped turnover.- [ (1) If the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer in respect of any period has escaped assessment to tax or has been under assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable under this Act or any deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, notwithstanding the fact that the whole or part of such escaped turnover was already before the said authority at the time of the original assessment or re-assessment but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), at anytime within a period of (eight years)from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to assess or re-assess to the best of its judgment the tax payable by the dealer in respect of such turnover after issuing a notice to the dealer and after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary". In our view, the authority has rightly invoked Section-12 A of the Act. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel however relies on two Judgments in support of his submissions. 1962 STC 112 and 1955 STC 339. In our view, the authority has rightly invoked Section-12 A of the Act. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel however relies on two Judgments in support of his submissions. 1962 STC 112 and 1955 STC 339. 62 STC 112 is a judgment of the Supreme Court and in the said judgment, there is nothing that is helpful to the appellant. The Court was considering with regard to certificate issued by purchasing dealer. Similarly the Judgment in 55 STC 339 is also not available to the petitioner. In that case, the Court was considering with regard to a declaration and with regard to proof in such circumstances. Both the judgments are not available to the given facts and given circumstances. In the case on hand, except a declaration by m/s KLAC, no other material is available on record. In these circumstances, second contention has to be answered in favour of the revenue. ( 8 ) THE last contention is with regard to proceeding against m/s KLAC and recovering of the tax from M/s KLAC and not from the appellant. Section 12a of the Act provides for consideration of escaped turnover. Section 8-A5 (a) is available in different circumstances. Each sections are in different circumstances. Hence, a mere availability of a remedy u/s. 8-5 A (a) would not be a ground for the assessee to challenge the order in the case on hand. In the result, the appeal stands rejected without being admitted. All questions are answered in favour of the revenue. Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Government Advocate is given four weeks time to file her memo of appearance. No costs.