ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) This Tax Revision Case is directed against the order dt.13.05.2003 in T.A.No.505 of 1998 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for the assessment year 1993-94 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The revision petitioner – assessee is a registered dealer in liquor and beer on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, M.G.Road Circle, Secunderabad, and was assessed to tax, vide assessment order dt.31.03.1997 by the jurisdictional assessing authority. 3. The revision petitioner – assessee aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, whereby the assessing authority had levied tax on sale of bottles and cartons at the rate applicable to the contents and also levy of turnover tax on the sale of liquor for the period from 18.07.1993 to 31.03.1994, had filed appeal before the 1 st appellate authority in terms of Section 19 of the Act and on the appellate authority dismissing the appeal, vide its order dt.01.11.1997, the revision petitioner – assessee had availed the further remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, vide T.A.No.505 of 1998. 4. The Tribunal, by its order dt.13.05.2003, insofar as the appeal relating to sale of bottles is concerned, had allowed the appeal, and insofar levy of turnover tax under Section 5-A of the Act on the turnover of the dealer relating to second sales of liquor and beer is concerned, had dismissed the same. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, this revision petition under Section 22 of the Act is filed, on the ground that the levy of turnover tax under Section 5-A of the Act on the turnover relating to second sale of liquor and beer is contrary to the Act. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 7. On behalf of the revision petitioner – assessee, it is contended that since the petitioner is second seller in respect of sale of liquor and beer, which are liable to tax under Sixth Schedule to the Act, no turnover tax in terms of Section 5-A of the Act can be levied on the turnover scored by the revision petitioner – assessee. 8. 8. It is also contended by the petitioner – assessee that in terms of proviso to Section 5-A of the Act, since, the subject goods purchased and sold by the petitioner – assessee are subjected to tax under Sixth Schedule, the petitioner – assessee cannot be subjected to levy of turnover tax under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. 9. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that levy of turnover tax on the turn over scored by the petitioner – assessee for the assessment year and being second seller, cannot claim of it not being liable to pay turnover tax on its turnover for the year 1993-94 and thus, the learned Special Standing Counsel supports the order of the Tribunal. 10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 11. Though on behalf of the revision petitioner – assessee, it is contended that sale of liquor and beer by the petitioner – assessee is second sale and since the same liable to tax under Sixth Schedule and as such it is not liable to turnover tax being second seller, a perusal of the order of assessment would show that the petitioner – assessee was neither the first seller nor the last seller of beer and liquor during the relevant assessment year. 12. During the relevant assessment period, the sale of liquor other than toddy and arrack was liable to tax at every point of sale other than at the point of last sale in the State, at 0.25 paise in the rupee, and insofar last sale in the State, the same was subjected to tax at 0.05 paise. 13. Since, the assessment order records the petitioner to be not undertaking last sale of liquor and beer, the turnover relating to the sale of liquor and beer was subjected to tax at 25%. 13. Since, the assessment order records the petitioner to be not undertaking last sale of liquor and beer, the turnover relating to the sale of liquor and beer was subjected to tax at 25%. Though on behalf of the petitioner – assessee, it is contended that by virtue of the proviso to Section 5-A of the Act, it cannot be subjected to levy of turnover tax, a reading of Section 5-A of the Act which was in force during the period 18.07.1993 to 30.03.1994 firstly would show that the aforesaid provision of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause i.e. ‘notwithstanding contained’ and secondly, there is no proviso dealing with tax not being levied under the said Section is in respect of sale or purchase of goods specified in Sixth Schedule for the petitioner – assessee to claim that it is not liable to pay tax, since the liquor is liable to tax at every point of sale in the State. 14. Further, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of C.W.C.Wines (P) Limited v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , [1994] 93 STC 455 (AP) , while considering the levy and collection of turnover tax under Section 5-A of the Act on the turnover of liquor on which tax has been levied at the preceding point of sale had held as under: “Section 5 read with Sixth Schedule of the Act is only one of the charging sections levying tax on net sales of liquor as reduced by turnover that suffered tax at the preceding point and there is no bar on the Legislature for levying turnover tax under Section 5-A of the Act on the gross turnover of liquor in addition to the tax under Section 5.” 15. Since, the proviso of Section 5-A of the Act at the relevant point of time, does not provide for exemption from the levy of turnover tax in respect of sale or purchase of goods liable to tax under Sixth Schedule under the Act, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner – assessee of ‘it not liable to pay turnover tax’ does not merit consideration. 16. 16. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner – assessee on this ground cannot be said to be either suffering from error of law or perversity giving to rise to question of law to be decided in the present revision case. 17. In view of the above, the Tax Revision Case fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.