JUDGMENT : Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed challenging the competent authority's refusal to issue a clarification under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, 'Act', for short. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the leaned Senior Government Pleader for the Department of Commercial Taxes. 3. Appellant, who is admittedly a dealer, filed an application for clarification. Thereafter, it sought amendment of the points regarding which clarification was sought for. All the three issues so raised, taken together would clearly show that in their ultimate analysis, all that the appellant wanted was a finding by the authority for clarification that the tax suffered as service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to any portion of work carried out by the dealer should be permitted to be deducted while determining the turnover for the purpose of levy of tax and payment under the optional scheme in terms of Section 8(a) of the Act. The authority refused to entertain that application. 4. While the appellant holds out an earlier instance where a clarification application in relation to such an issue was entertained, though refused on merits, we are of the view that, in law, such an issue relatable to quantification of turnover could be considered or decided in an application under Section 94 of the Act. The need for clarification is issue specific. The requirement of the appealing dealer is to determine the issue as to whether a particular amount or quantum of transaction or tax paid under another act is to be excluded while determining turnover for the purpose of Section 8(a) of the Act. The question of determining the turnover is not different as between the regular assessment and the optional scheme. The modality of determining the turnover did not fall within any of the clauses (a) to (e) of Section 94(1) of the Act. Merely because the authority had issued a clarification in relation to regular assessment, that by itself does not mean that we can find any illegality, error of jurisdiction or impropriety in the authority having refused to issue a clarification at the request of the dealer. For the afore reasons, this appeal fails. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.