H.L. Dattu, C.J.

Since the assessee is common in both these revision petitions and since the legal issue involved is identical, these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in purchase and sale of public call office monitors, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “PCO Monitors”) for use in telephone booths. For the assessment year 2000-01, the petitioner had filed annual returns conceding total and taxable turnover of Rs.5,53,200.00 and Rs.3,96,750.00 respectively. For the assessment year 2001-02, in the returns filed, petitioner had conceded total and taxable turnover of Rs.5,65,875.00 and Rs.5,29,265.00 respectively. In the returns filed the petitioner had conceded liability to tax at the rate of 4% treating PCO Monitors as a type of computer falling under Entry 56 of the First Schedule to KGST Act.

3. Since the conceded turnover was less than Rs.15,00,000/- the assessing authority has completed the assessments under Section 17(4) of the KGST Act, accepting the returns filed, but levying tax at the rate of 8% on the sales turnover of “PCO Monitor” treating it as an item falling under Entry 55 of First Schedule to KGST Act.

4. The appeals filed against the assessment orders passed for both the assessment years, were allowed by the First Appellate Authority following the earlier decision of the Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-I, Ernakulam in T.A. No.159 of 2001, in which the Tribunal has held that PCO Monitor is also a type of Computer, exigible to tax under Entry 56 of first Schedule to KGST Act and the rate of tax is 4%.

5. The Revenue being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam in S.T.A. Nos.1801 of 2002 and S.T.A. No.2263 of 2003 for the assessment years 200001 and 2001-02 respectively has filed Second Appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-II, Ernakulam in E.A. Nos.413/04 and 414/04. The tribunal, by its common judgment dated 2nd February, 2005, has allowed the Revenue’s appeal and has concluded that “PCO Monitor” is an electronic equipment and therefore, requires to be classified as an item falling under Entry 55 of First Schedule to KGST Act, taxable at the rate of 8% during the assessment years, 2000-01 and 2001-02. The findings and the conclusions of the Tribunal is as under:-

“The Tribunal found that its earlier decision in TA. No.159/2001 was misunderstood by the First Appellate Authority while passing Annexure II order. The question which arose for consideration in TA No.159/2001 was as to whether PCO Monitor will fall under “Components and accessory of computers and sub-systems” mentioned in Schedule VI A–3.2 of SRO 870/99. The Tribunal in that case did not find that PCO Monitor is a type of computer, but only held that the item is included under component and accessories of computers and sub systems and therefore confessional rate is allowable under SRO 870/99. The Tribunal further found that as per the certificate produced by the assessee from the Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics Engineering, Government Engineering College, Thrissur, STD PCO Monitors are a type of computer controlled machine used in STD Booths for monitoring and billing of telephone calls and the said certificate does not certify that PCO Monitor is a computer. Therefore the Tribunal held that PCO Monitor is not a computer. The Tribunal further held that rate of tax applicable to PCO Monitor is 8% under entry 55 of Ist schedule to the KGST Act. While deciding so, the Tribunal also relied on a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in which it was clarified that PCO Monitor was an electronic instrument and rate of tax applicable is 8%”.

6. The assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is before us in this tax revision case and has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and dec