JUDGMENT D. Murugesan, J. - Tax Case Appeal No. 239 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2000-2001. Tax Case Appeal No. 240 of 2006 relates to the year 1999-2000. Since the assessee and the appellant are one and the same and the questions of law raised are also one and the same, both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order. The appeals were admitted on the following questions of law : "1. In view of the specific language of section 8(2A) of the CST Act, 1956, and on the admitted position that the turnover of the appellant is well below Rs. 100 crores, whether imposition of tax under CST on the appellant is sustainable in law ? 2. Whether the lower authorities and Appellate Tribunal have taken into consideration the language of section 8(2A) of the CST Act ? and 3. Whether the quantum of turnover could be fixed purely based on the statement without any corroborative material ?" In order to answer the questions of law, the following few facts are relevant : The appellant, viz., assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 32,98,557 and Rs. 32,98,557, respectively, for the year 2000-01. The assessee has also reported a total turnover at Rs. 9,44,13,569 and taxable turnover at Rs. 31,289 for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee claimed exemption for sale of refined oil on the ground that it is not an inter-State sale and in any case, by virtue of the notification issued under section 17 of the TNGST Act, the assessee is exempted from payment of tax if the total and taxable turnover is less than Rs. 100 crores. The assessing officer did not agree with the claim and proceeded to pass the assessment orders. Those orders were taken on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, by his order dated October 6, 2004, partly dismissed the appeal and partly remanded the same. The remand is for the purpose of re-consideration of levy of penalty and the confirmation is in respect of the payment of tax, i.e. otherwise the denial of the claim of exemption. These two appeals have been filed against the common order against both the assessment orders. Mr. The remand is for the purpose of re-consideration of levy of penalty and the confirmation is in respect of the payment of tax, i.e. otherwise the denial of the claim of exemption. These two appeals have been filed against the common order against both the assessment orders. Mr. G. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant - assessee, submitted that the notification was issued pursuant to the powers conferred under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, exempting payment of tax for the commodity in question and the said notification came into force on March 27, 1998. By virtue of the said notification, if the total turnover is less than Rs. 100 crores, the exemption would be automatically available. That limit of Rs. 100 crores was increased by a further notification which came into force with effect from April 1, 1999. As the total turnovers in each assessment year in question do not exceed Rs. 100 crores, the levy of tax is unwarranted. The learned senior counsel would further submit that even on merits, the claim for exemption under section 6(3A) ought to have been granted. The learned senior counsel would submit that for the purpose of reduction of claim of exemption, the assessing officer as well as the other authorities had relied upon only the statements said to have been recorded from the General Manager, which statement had not only been retracted subsequently, but also the Income-tax authorities while considering the grievance of the appellant - assessee, held that the assessment cannot be based on the mere statement and accordingly allowed the appeal preferred as against the assessment orders. On the other hand, Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that insofar as the exemption is concerned, it is a conditional exemption to avail of the benefit of exemption in terms of section 6(2A) of the CST Act which was in force for the relevant assessment years. The notification relating to the exemption must be general in nature and if the exemption is on certain conditions, the provisions of section 6(2A) is not available to the assessee. The notification relating to the exemption must be general in nature and if the exemption is on certain conditions, the provisions of section 6(2A) is not available to the assessee. Insofar as the merit is concerned, he would submit that the assessing officer had not only relied upon the statement made by the Chairman, but also the other facts relating to the deposit amounts received by the assessee by way of demand drafts in the name of its employees from its customers. Hence, the statement viz., dealer had effected inter-State sale, has been amply corroborated and this being a factual finding, the appellant cannot question the same. We have carefully considered the above submissions. As far as the first contention is concerned, we may notice that in exercise of the power conferred by section 17 of the TNGST Act, the following notification had been issued : "395. Exemption in respect of the tax payable * (by any dealer whose total turnover in a year does not exceed rupees one hundred crores) on the sale of coconut oil, gingelly oil, groundnut oil, sunflower oil ** (cotton seed oil, rice bran oil) and all refined oils including refined palm oil, refined cotton seed oil and refined rice-bran oil. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the March 27, 1998. (G.O. Ms. No. 109 CT & RE dated April 7, 1998 Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/43(d-4)/98 - Gazette dated April 7, 1998 - Effective from March 27, 1998 (retrospective)). * Note 1 : Item 1 was inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 36 CT dated March 1, 1999 - Notification No. II(1)/CT/22(b-1)99 - Gazette dated March 1, 1999 - Effective from March 1, 1999. ** 2 : Item 2 was inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 337 CT dated December 23, 1998 - Notification No. II(1)/CT/16/99 - Gazette dated January 13, 1999 - Effective from January 13, 1999." In the above notification, an outer monetary limit is fixed at Rs. 100 crores as the total turnover in a year for availing of exemption. That outer limit of Rs. 100 crores was increased to Rs. 300 crores with effect from April 1, 1999 by the subsequent following notification : "446. 100 crores as the total turnover in a year for availing of exemption. That outer limit of Rs. 100 crores was increased to Rs. 300 crores with effect from April 1, 1999 by the subsequent following notification : "446. Exemption in respect of the tax payable on the sale of coconut oil, gingelly oil, groundnut oil, sunflower oil, cotton seed oil, rice-bran oil and all refined oils including refined palm oil, refined cotton seed oil and refined rice-bran oil by any dealer whose turnover on the sale of all these goods does not exceed rupees three hundred crores per year. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect * (on and from the April 1, 1999.) (G.O. Ms. No. 93 CT dated June 2, 2000 - Notification No. II(1)/CT/45(b-1)/2000 - Gazette dated June 2, 2000 - Effective from April 1, 1999 (Retrospective)). * Note 1 : The expression 'on and from the April 1, 1999' was substituted for the expression 'on and from the March 1, 1999' by G.O. Ms. No. 105 CT dated June 22, 2000 - Notification No. II(1)/CT/48(a)/2000 - Gazette dated June 22, 2000 - (Refer Notn. Sl. No. 452)." The question is whether by virtue of the above notifications, the assessee - petitioner would be entitled to exemption under the CST Act. Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 reads thus : "(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate." It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when an exemption is granted in terms of section 8(2A), certain exceptions are carved out from applicability of exemption clause by way of Explanation. Those exceptions are "in specified circumstances", "under specified conditions", "tax is levied on the sale or purchase of goods at specified stages", or "otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods". According to the learned counsel, even in the event the transaction is with reference to the turnover of goods, the notification issued under section 17 of the TNGST Act giving exemption would be available to the assessee - dealer. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit. However, it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the exemption is available only when it is general in nature and not conditional. The condition being a taxable turnover of less than Rs. 100 crores or Rs. 300 crores as the case may be. Hence, the exemption under the notification is not available to the appellant - assessee. Though we are called upon to decide the above question, on a perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal, we could not see any discussion regarding the above submissions on the provisions. In our opinion, in the absence of any detailed discussion by the Tribunal, the issues raised as to the applicability of the notification in question, in the facts of the given case, must be considered by the Tribunal once again. To this extent, the appeal should be remitted. Accordingly, the first and second questions are answered only to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration. As far as the third question, viz., whether claim of exemption could be denied on the basis of the statement is concerned, we could see that the chairman of the appellant - dealer had given a statement accepting the transaction to be an inter-State sale. The chairman has given the said statement on February 6, 2001. When the business premises of the appellant - assessee was inspected by the officers of the Income-tax Department, he had given a statement to the effect that the transactions recorded in the savings bank account of Tvl. L. S. Shanmugasundaram and S. Ravi in the State Bank of India, Kangayam, relate to their own business only. The very same statement was also given on July 12, 2001 when the chairman was examined by the assessing officers. L. S. Shanmugasundaram and S. Ravi in the State Bank of India, Kangayam, relate to their own business only. The very same statement was also given on July 12, 2001 when the chairman was examined by the assessing officers. The question is therefore as to whether the claim of exemption could be negatived solely on the basis of the statements, without there being any supportive materials. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that those statements had been retracted and on the basis of such retraction, the income-tax appeal was allowed, we are not going into the said question. The main grievance of the appellant is that there are no supportive materials for the Revenue to claim that the transaction was an inter-State sale. In this context, we may refer to the orders of assessment. In the orders of assessment, it is stated that during inspection, an extract taken from the savings bank account had revealed that one Tvl. L. S. Shanmugasundaram and S. Ravi, who were regular employees of the appellant - assessee had deposits in their own names for the period from April 1, 1999 to February 5, 2001 in the following manner : -------------------------------------------------- S. Ravi Rs. 2,71,22,722 -------------------------------------------------- L. S. Shanmugasundaram Rs. 1,75,33,655 -------------------------------------------------- The admission of the chairman as to the above deposits received from the customers was not a mere oral statement, but on the basis of the above materials. His statements are supported by records. To this extent, we cannot find fault with the order of the assessing officer and we may also take note of the fact that the assessee has also paid the tax. Further, from the assessment order, it is seen that only an oral agreement was arrived at and there was no written agreement with agents for stock transactions as could be seen from serial Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the assessment order. The above material would also be sufficient for the assessing officer to disallow the exemption. Accordingly, we do not find any merit to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as both the orders including the orders of the assessing officer are well supported by sufficient materials and not on the basis of the statements said to have been given by the chairman of the appellant - assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any merit to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as both the orders including the orders of the assessing officer are well supported by sufficient materials and not on the basis of the statements said to have been given by the chairman of the appellant - assessee. Accordingly, we answer the third question against the appellant - assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In fine, the tax case appeals are allowed in part, confirming the assessment order, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. However, as far as the issue as to whether the notification issued under section 17 of the TNGST Act granting exemption could be available to the appellant - assessee, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.