ORDER Ravi Malimath , J.—This appeal is by the assessee being aggrieved by the order dated May 28, 2009 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 461 to 463 of 2006 dismissing the appeal. The assessee is a partnership concern, engaged in the manufacture of craft papers. The appellant has made a new investment under the expansion programme as per fixed assets valuation certificate issued by the DIC dated April 16, 1999. As per the said certificate the appellant is entitled to claim tax exemption benefit with effect from December 12, 1997 for a period of six years and limited to Rs.57,80,000 on the sale of their finished products that is 80 per cent of the investment made under the expansion programme. For the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 the assessing authority concluded the assessments by allowing tax benefit under the expansion programme by considering the average tax liability for the preceding three years. The assessee however has disputed the tax benefit. Accordingly he preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated May 28, 2009 allowed the appeal and the orders of the lower authorities not granting the exemption was set aside and the assessing authority was directed to compute the difference between the total tax liability for the year 1997-98 and the average tax liability of the earlier three years and allow the said difference as exemption of tax under the said notification dated October 11, 1995. On remand, the assessing authority recomputed the tax liability. However, the assessee disputed the same. The said orders were challenged before the first appellate authority who rejected the same. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred three appeals. S. T. A. No. 461 of 2006 was filed before the Tribunal for the years 2001-02 under the KST Act and S. T. A. No. 462 of 2006 relating to the year 2002-03 under the KST Act and S.T.A. No. 463 of 2006 relating to 2002-03 under the CST Act. 2. The Tribunal by its order dated May 28, 2009 dismissed the appeal holding that the average tax liability quantified by the assessing authority in all these appeals is in order and does not require any interference. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. Miss. 2. The Tribunal by its order dated May 28, 2009 dismissed the appeal holding that the average tax liability quantified by the assessing authority in all these appeals is in order and does not require any interference. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. Miss. Vani, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, contends that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the lower authorities are bad in law and liable to be set aside. She contends that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in considering the provisions of the notification dated February 28, 1993 and the notification dated October 11, 1995. She contends that by the notification dated October 11, 1995 the tax liability eligible for exemption shall be the difference between the total tax liability namely, the tax liability under the KST Act and the tax liability under the CST Act and the average total liability of the three years immediately preceding the year in which the investment was sought expansion/ modernization has taken place. She contends that in the instant case, the same has not been done. Therefore, denied the benefit to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Smt Sujatha, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. The Tribunal has rightly interpreted both the notification and has granted the relief that the assessee is entitled to. 5. Heard counsels. 6. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the assessee came to the conclusion that there is no error committed by the assessing authority and first appellate authority that calls for any interference. That the average tax liability has been properly quantified by the assessing authority and hence no interference is called for. 7. A perusal of the order of the assessing authority would clearly show that the total tax liability worked out therein was at Rs.16,81,872.20. This figure was arrived at by totalling the KST of Rs.14,88,998.16 and the CST at Rs.1,92,874.04. The total tax liability under the KST and CST for the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 is sum of Rs.29,29,214. The average of three years being Rs.9,76,404, hence by deducting this figure from the total tax liability namely, Rs.16,81,872.20, the assessee was eligible for tax exemption of Rs.7,05,468 for the assessment year 2001-02, both under the KST and CST Act. The total tax liability under the KST and CST for the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 is sum of Rs.29,29,214. The average of three years being Rs.9,76,404, hence by deducting this figure from the total tax liability namely, Rs.16,81,872.20, the assessee was eligible for tax exemption of Rs.7,05,468 for the assessment year 2001-02, both under the KST and CST Act. Accordingly, the same methodology was adopted so far as 2002-03 is concerned. In terms of the notification dated October 11, 1995 the tax liability eligible for exemption shall be the difference between the total tax liability and the average total tax liability of the three years immediately preceding the year in which the expansion/modernization has taken place. The assessee has expanded its investment with effect from 1997-98. The aggregate of the preceding three years that is 1993-94, 1995-96, 1997-98 have been taken into consideration while granting the exemption. The assessing authority has rightly interpreted the notifications and which has been upheld by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the grounds urged therein and, has taken a decision that does not call for any interference, The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The assessee has been granted the appropriate relief in terms of the notifications. We do not see any error committed by the authorities that calls for interference. 8. It is further contended that the order of the Tribunal passed on the first occasion dated February 28, 2005, was challenged by the Revenue in S.T.R.P. No. 19 of 2006. This court by its order dated November 14, 2007 (State of Karnataka v. Associated Paper and Straw Boards) dismissed the petition of the State. It is therefore contended that since the petition was dismissed as no question of law arises, the present petition should also be dismissed on the very same reasoning. We are unable to accept the said contention. S.T.R.P. No. 19 of 2006 was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh disposal for fresh consideration. Therefore, the court was of the view that in an order remanding the matter no substantial question of law arises for consideration and hence the petition was dismissed. The analogy to the present petition is wholly misconceived. Hence this contention of the respondent is untenable. Therefore, the court was of the view that in an order remanding the matter no substantial question of law arises for consideration and hence the petition was dismissed. The analogy to the present petition is wholly misconceived. Hence this contention of the respondent is untenable. We do not see any error committed by the authorities that calls for interference. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.