K.S.PARIPOORNAN, J. - (1.)THE Revenue is the petitioner in both the cases. The respondent -assessee is a private limited company. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The respondent paid rubber cess to the Rubber Board. We are concerned with the assessment years 1982 -83 and 1983 -84. The question in controversy is whether the cess paid by the respondent -assessee to the Rubber Board is includible in its purchase turnover. The Appellate Tribunal held, for both the assessment years 1982 -83 and 1983 -84, that the cess paid to the Rubber Board by the respondent -assessee cannot form part of the purchase turnover of rubber by the assessee. In coming to the said conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal followed the Full Bench decision of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory Limited v. State of Kerala [1989] 74 STC 56; (1989) 1 KLT 827. For the year 1983 -84, the assessee put forward a plea of deduction of Rs. 2,206 as sales return from the turnover. The Appellate Tribunal held that the sales return was within time and the Rules in that regard have been complied with. The assessee was held entitled to deduction. Aggrieved by the common order passed for the years 1982 -83 and 1983 -84 in T.A. Nos. 264 and 273 of 1989 dated January 31, 1991, the Revenue has come up in revisions.
(2.)WE heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. V. C. James, Senior Government Pleader.
It is conceded that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory's case [1989] 74 STC 56; (1989) 1 KLT 827, cess paid by the respondent -assessee to the Rubber Board is not includible in its purchase turnover. In this view, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the assessing authority to exclude the rubber cess paid by the respondent -assessee from the turnover for both the years.

(3.)WITH regard to the deduction of Rs. 2,206 as sales return, the Appellate Tribunal held that the sales return was within time and it happened to be in the next year only due to accidental circumstances and beyond the control of the assessee. It was further held that the rule was complied with. In these circumstances, the assessee was held entitled for the deduction. We see no error in the said reasoning and conclusion. On this ground, the deduction afforded for the year 1983 -84 was justified.
;