High Court Kerala High Court

Mathew.K vs The Director Of Industries And … on 11 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mathew.K vs The Director Of Industries And … on 11 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2169 of 2008()


1. MATHEW.K, PROPRIETOR, M/S.DECAN CABLES
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRIC INDUSTRIES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :11/02/2009

 O R D E R
                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                     K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                 -----------------------------------------------
                      W.A. No. 2169 OF 2008
               ---------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the11th day of February, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair,J.

Heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for

the respondent. The question involved is whether appellant is

entitled to sales tax exemption on the value of the machinery

purchased and investment subsidy on the value of the same

machinery. The claim for exemption was rejected for the reason that

there is no satisfactory evidence to prove interstate transportation

and when the supplier was contacted, the letter was returned with

endorsement that no such company exists. However, appellant’s

specific case is that he got the goods in single truck and the total

value is around Rs.4 lakhs. The main machinery is the PVC extruder

which is used for manufacturing insulated copper cable in the

industry. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition for want

of proof to convince the purchase of new machinery by the appellant.

Even though we do not find anything wrong in the judgment, we feel

one more opportunity can be given to the appellant to substantiate

WA No.2169/08
-:2:-

the case before the General Manager, District Industries Centre,

Kollam(2nd respondent) for the following reasons.

2. In the first place, petitioners have produced Annexure A1

letter sent by the Manager in 1990. He has further contended that

petitioner can produce transport documents, since the goods

admittedly originated from Bangalore and since the goods are

transported through road it would not have come without being

supported by transport documents such as sales bill, central excise

gate pass etc. In fact, these documents would have been cleared by

border check posts before it reaches the consignee namely, the

appellant. Besides this, we are of the view that, supplier cannot be a

fly by-night company as it was engaged in manufacture of high value

machinery. Above all, the machinery would be covered by warranty

and there will be details about the installation certified by an electrical

inspector and all such allied documents to prove installation of the

new machinery. In fact, installation itself would be done by supplier’s

engineers within the warranty period and clear agreements pertaining

to warranty coverage also will be there. Besides this, there should

be bank documents pertaining to payment. If appellant produces

WA No.2169/08
-:3:-

convincing documents of the kind referred above within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, there

will be a direction to the General Manager, District Industries Centre,

Kollam to reconsider the matter and if found genuine, grant eligible

relief through a speaking order with the prior approval of the Director

of Industries and Commerce.

Appeal is disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(K. SURENDRA MOHAN)
Judge.

ttb

WA No.2169/08
-:4:-