IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17634 of 2008(Y)
1. SMT.M.H.WAHEEDA .PROPRIETRIX,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR)
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 17634 OF 2008 Y
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The
manufacturing unit of the petitioner is one recognized by the
Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. There is an
assessment against the petitioner for the assessment year
2001-02. At the time of the assessment order was passed,
Khadi and Village Industries were governed by Notification
SRO.291/2000. According to the said SRO, the petitioner
was entitled to concessional rate of tax only at 4% with effect
from 1.4.2000. It is her further case that the Government has
exempted all Khadi and Village Industries units in the State,
whose total turnover for a year did not exceed Rs.50 lakhs
from levy of tax. This is done by SRO.1048/2005. Again, by
Notification SRO.544/2007 dated 18.6.2007, the benefit was
extended to the period from 1.4.2000 onwards. Then the
petitioner’s turnover became eligible for total exemption. The
petitioner filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on the
WPC.17634/08
: 2 :
ground that no valid reasons are given for condonation of
delay. Then, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking
invocation of the power under section 43 of the KGST Act. In
the mean time, revenue recovery steps were taken. The
petitioner also relies on Ext.P6. It is an order passed in
appeal where the petitioner was granted benefit of the above
two notifications in respect of the assessment year 2000-01.
2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. I
feel that a decision can be ordered to be taken on Ext.P4 in
accordance with law without expressing any opinion on the
maintainability or merits of Ext.P4. In such circumstances, the
writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to
consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with
law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not
expressed any opinion on the maintainability or merits of the
application of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE