IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 300 of 2007()
1. M/S PUTHANANGADI FLOUR & OIL MILLS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :23/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.T.Rev. No.300 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2007.
ORDER
H.L.DATTU, CJ,
Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as ‘Act,
1963).
2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of coconut oil and oil
cake. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for sales tax exemption for the
period from 7.10.1996 to 6.10.2001 in a sum of Rs. 5,51,346/-. This claim is based
on the exemption certificate granted by the District Industries Centre.
3. The assessing authority, for the assessment year 1997-1998,
has completed the assessment by its order dated 12.9.2001 granting the benefit of
exemption of a sum of Rs.57,002/-.
4. Petitioner had also applied for exemption of a sum of
Rs.4,80,000/-, which according to him represents the investment made in Diesel
Generator set and Copra Drier. The claim so made is rejected by the District
Committee. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Committee, the
petitioner had carried the matter before the State Level Committee.
5. The State Level Committee while rejecting the claim made by the
petitioner for exemption in a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-, which represents investment
made in Diesel Generator set and Copra Drier, has observed that the earlier
exemption granted by the District Level Committee is also irregular and illegal.
S.T.REV.300/2007. 2
6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Level Committee, the
petitioner has filed W.P.(C) 29429 of 2004.
7. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Aggrieved by
that order passed, the assessee was before this court in W.A. 1910 of 2007. This court
by its order dated 15th November, 2007 has allowed the writ appeal and has remanded
the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.
8. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes has invoked his powers under Section 35 of Act, 1963 to revise
the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year
1997-1998. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 13.12.2004 has set aside
the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year
1997-1998 and further remanded the matter before the assessing authority for a fresh
disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said oder passed by the revisional
authority, the assessee has carried the matter by way of second appeal before the
Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A. No.254 of
2005. The Tribunal, by its order dated 10th May, 2007 has rejected the appeal filed by
the assessee. That is how the assessee is before us in this Sales Tax Revision Case.
9. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our
consideration and decision. They are as under:
“A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in confirming Annexure B
provisional order?
B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has
not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in failing to render a finding on the
additional grounds D and E raised before it as per Annexure C petition?
S.T.REV.300/2007. 3
C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in failing to note that even if
exemption is cancelled, such cancellation can have only prospective
effect from the date of cancellation?”
10. Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the
assessee would submit that the Tribunal went wrong in confirming the orders passed by
the revisional authority. Therefore, he requests us to modify the said order.
11. Sri Muhammed Rafiq, learned counsel appearing for the revenue
justifies the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal, while sustaining the order passed by the assessing
authority, has taken into consideration the orders passed by the District Industries
Centre and also the State Level Committee. The State Level Committee has rejected
the claim of the assessee for exemption from payment of sales tax.
13. In fact, at the time of completion of the assessment proceedings, the
assessing authority had granted exemption to the petitioner industry in a sum of
Rs.57,002/-. This had been done by the assessing authority in view of the orders
passed by the District Industries Centre.
14. In view of the orders passed by the State Level Committee in the
appeal filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has
invoked his powers under Section 35 of the Act to revise the orders of assessment
passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1997-1998 and thereafter
has remanded the matter to the assessing authority to re-do the matter in accordance
with law keeping in view the orders passed by the District Industries Centre and State
Level Committee. Since the petitioner industry is not exempted from payment of tax, the
assessing authority is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of
S.T.REV.300/2007. 4
exemption. This has to be done by the revising authority in view of the orders passed by
the State Level Committee. This aspect of the matter is taken note of by the Tribunal
while rejecting the appeal field by the assessee against the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 35 of Act, 1963. In view of the
above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing
the impugned order dated 10.5.2007, and therefore the said order need not be
interfered by us. Accordingly, the Revision Case requires to be rejected and it is
rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a proper application, if
for any reason he succeeds in the writ petition filed by him before this court.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
sb/DK.