Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair,J. The connected appeal and writ petition arise from penalty levied on the assessee under Section 45 A of the KGST Act for alleged evasion of sales tax due for 2000-01. Assessee a dealer in automobiles purchased chassis of trucks, got body built thereon and sold the vehicles. According to the assessee the chassis and body built thereon have separately suffered tax and therefore the assessee is entitled to exemption on the sales turnover of vehicles. However, since no evidence was produced about payment of tax for body built on the chassis, the assessing officer levied tax. The assessment was the subject matter of the appeal and the Tribunal has remanded the matter vide Annexure H order. In the penalty proceedings initiated for evasion of tax, the intelligence officer levied penalty of Rs.7,57,848/-. Eventhough in the first revision the Deputy Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs.50,000/-, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in suo motu revision cancelled the first revisional authority's order and restored the penalty against which assessee has filed the statutory appeal. The revision filed against the first revisional authority's order was dismissed by the Commissioner, against which the assessee has filed he Writ Petition. We have heard Senior counsel, Dr.K.B. Muhammed Kutty, appearing for the assessee and the Government Pleader, Sri.V.K.Shamsudeen for the respondent. 2. The assessee's claim for exemption, though accepted by the Tribunal vide Annexure H order, is not tenable because the relevant entry provides only for rebate of tax on the tax paid on chassis and on body built thereon. For easy reference, we extract hereunder the relevant Entry. TABLE Explanation:- When a tax has been levied on chassis of motor vehicle or on body built on such chassis within the State, the tax payable on the motor vehicle produced out of such chassis shall be reduced by the amount of tax on such chassis or body built on such chassis. 3. From the above Entry and the explanation thereto it is very clear that the scheme is to levy tax on the sales turnover of motor vehicles and wherever the chassis or the body, as the case may be, has suffered tax under the Act, the assessee engaged in the sale of vehicle will be entitled to rebate on such tax paid. Liability of the assessee to pay tax on sales turnover of motor vehicles at the scheduled rate is absolute and it is for the assessee to prove that the chassis or the body built thereon have suffered tax and on production of proof of the same, the assessing officer is bound to grant rebate on such tax paid. Therefore assessee engaged in buying chassis and building body thereon cannot claim second sale exemption on vehicle stating that both chassis and body have suffered tax independently on first sales. What the assessee has done in this case is, to claim exemption, treating the sale of the vehicle as second sale. This is factually incorrect because what the assessee purchased is chassis and what he has sold after body built thereon is a full motor vehicle. Since the sale of motor vehicle as such is the first sale in the State, it is not entitled to exemption as second sale. Therefore, assessee is entitled to only rebate of tax to the extent paid in Kerala for the purchase of chassis as well as for the body built thereon. Eventhough the assessment order of the Body builder was produced by the assessee before the Tribunal and body built for assessee's vehicles also may have suffered tax, that is not the document based on which assessee is entitled to get rebate under explanation to Entry 94. We have already found that the exemption claimed by the assessee is not tenable and assessee is only entitled to rebate of tax for the tax paid by the body builder. So far the proof of payment of tax by the Body builder for the body built on the chassis supplied by the assessee is concerned, we do not see any reason why assessee cannot produce sale/work bills showing collection of tax to claim rebate. We make it clear that, even if the body builder has not originally raised invoice collecting tax and if tax on body built is subsequently levied on him and if proof of tax paid for each vehicle with reference to chassis number and engine number of the vehicle sold by the assessee is produced then we still feel the assessee should be given rebate of tax, no matter such tax may or may not even recovered by body builder from the assessee. What is required to be proved for rebate is that the tax in fact is paid on chassis or body built thereon and the amount so paid. Payment of tax is obviously by body builder no matter whether it is recovered by body builder from the assessee or not. However, without proof of payment of tax on the chassis and the body built thereon, the assessee is not entitled to rebate of tax. We clarify this position with direction to the assessing officer to modify the assessment after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce documents pertaining to payment of tax on the body built on the chassis of each vehicle sold by the assessee. 4. If the assessing officer has already modified the assessment granting exemption pursuant to the Tribunal's order, he shall rectify the assessment by following the above directions. In view of the direction issued by us, we direct the intelligence officer to reconsider the penalty orders also after receipt of revised order from the assessing officer, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to produce documents in the matter. If there is no scope for levy of penalty, then based on the revised order passed by the assessing officer, the intelligence officer will drop the proceedings for penalty. However, if there is no scope for levying penalty, he will issue notice to the assessee and issue fresh penalty orders.