D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J. - This is a revision by the assessee against the order dated 18th April, 1989 in T.A. No. 1173 of 1987 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. We are concerned with the assessment year 1982-83. The background in which the revision has been filed (briefly stated) is as follows : The revision-petitioner is a dealer in allopathic drugs, tarpaulin, etc. The petitioner, treating the tarpaulin as an unclassified item taxable at multi-point at 4 per cent, collected the tax at that rate from the customers and paid it to the Government. The assessment for the year 1982-83 was made treating tarpaulin as an unclassified item chargeable at 4 per cent. The assessment order was passed on 28th January, 1984. The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, acting suo motu under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, invited objections of the petitioner, and then relying upon a clarification issued by the Government in G.O. (R) No. 60/86 TD dated 19th April, 1986, came to the conclusion that tarpaulin will come under entry 100 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and it is taxable at 10 per cent with effect from 16th September, 1980. He accordingly passed an order directing the assessing authority to revise assessment. In compliance with the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2nd November, 1987, the assessing authority revised the assessment for the year 1982-83 by order dated 22nd January, 1988. He subjected the turnover regarding tarpaulin to taxation at 10 per cent and raised an additional demand for Rs. 35,503 towards sales tax and Rs. 2,552 towards surcharge. The assessee, revision-petitioner, filed an appeal against the revised assessment order dated 22nd January, 1988, and the same is pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as S.T.A. No. 204 of 1988. The revision-petitioner also filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 2nd November, 1987. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner's order on the ground that the Tribunal being a creature of the statute is bound by the clarification issued by the Government in exercise of its power under section 59-A of the Act. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee.

2. In this revision, Shri T. Karunakaran Nambiar raised the following arguments : (1) the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, being a quasi-judicial authority, is not bound by the clarification issued by the Government under section 59-A; its duty is to interpret the statutory provisions; (2) the so-called clarification issued on 19th April, 1986, cannot have retrospective operation, and it cannot declare that between the dates 16th September, 1980 and 31st March, 1984, tarpaulins are taxable under entry 100 of the First Schedule; (3) the very fact that with effect from 1st April, 1984, the First Schedule is amended to introduce entry 100C is a clear indication that the earlier entry 100 did not cover tarpaulin; under no circumstances can a tarpaulin be described as "bonded fibre fabrics other than those made of coir" as described in entry 100 of the First Schedule; and (4) the manner in which the Government exercised its power under section 59-A and issued the clarification dated 19th April, 1986 in G.O. (R) No. 60/86 TD is a clear indication that under the guise of issuing a clarification the State Government is trying to modify or alter the entries in the Schedule. Such a power is not available to the State Government. That is a function which can be performed only by the Legislature.

3. On behalf of the Revenue, Shri N. N. Divakaran Pillai, Special Senior Standing Counsel (Taxes), urged that the power to issue clarifications under section 59-A extends to deciding the questions which arise as to the rate of tax leviable on any goods. In effect, it is a sort of statutory adjudication and naturally th