K.T.Baby vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 241 of 2010()


1. K.T.BABY, MUTTATH STARCH PRODUCTS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA .
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY

 Dated :12/01/2011

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                       BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                 S.T. Rev. Nos.241, 243 & 244 of 2010
               ....................................................................
                Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The petitioner was granted sales tax exemption for seven years

treating the activity i.e. powdering of tamarind seed, as a

manufacturing activity. After availing exemption for several years, the

General Manager, District Industries Centre, recalled the exemption

order towards the fag end of the period for which exemption was

allowed. Since certificate of exemption was withdrawn, assessments

were made for the three years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. Appeals at two

levels were unsuccessful and hence these S.T. Revisions are filed

before us. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government

Pleader for the respondent.

2. During hearing counsel for the petitioner submitted that

assessee was under a bonafide mistake that correction of the

cancellation order could be challenged before the appellate authorities

under the KGST Act and in turn before this court in revision

S.T.Rev.241/10 & conn. 2

proceedings and, therefore, no Writ Petition was filed independently

challenging the order cancelling exemption granted earlier. He has also

relied on decision of this court in R.SURESHKUMAR VS. STATE OF

KERALA reported in (2005) 140 STC 228 wherein this court held that

conversion of tamarind seed into powder amounts to manufacture or

production of an article entitling the industrial unit to claim sales tax

exemption. Counsel contended that since tax is still due, petitioner

continues to have grievance and can still file Writ Petition. We do not

want to decide this issue as of now because independent of the

challenge against Tribunal’s orders, petitioner is free to challenge the

order of the General Manager withdrawing exemption. So far as the

sales tax authorities are concerned, when the source of exemption

disappears, they are free to levy and demand tax. The appellate

authorities were only considering the correctness of the assessments

and not correctness of the order of the General Manager withdrawing

S.T.Rev.241/10 & conn. 3

exemption. So much so, we do not find any merit in the S.T. Revision

cases and the same are dismissed. However, it would be open to the

petitioner to seek all other remedies available to him.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

BHABANI PRASAD RAY
Judge

pms