IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32062 of 2006(P)
1. SREE CHAKRA INDUSTRIES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE ON
3. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON
4. THE SALES TAX OFFIER, KAYAMKULAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :30/06/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 32062 OF 2006
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P8 and seeks a direction
to respondents 1 & 2 to restore Ext.P1 exemption order and
grant the additional exemption claimed as per application dated
04.08.1999 in the light of Ext.P7 order. Petitioner also seeks a
direction to call for the records of Exts.P4, P5 & P6 assessment
orders and quash the same and further direct the fourth
respondent to re-do the assessments for the years 1998 – 1999,
1999 – 2000 & 2000 – 2001 after restoration of Ext.P1 order and
issue of additional sales tax exemption certificate by
respondents 1 & 2 in terms of Ext.P7 order and set off the sales
tax due for these years against the eligible sales tax exemption
available to the petitioner. A further direction is sought to the
fourth respondent to refund the tax and interest forcibly
recovered from the petitioner for the assessment years 1998 –
1999, 1999 – 2000 & 2000 – 2001.
WPC. 32062/06 P 2
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the
manufacture of tamarind seed powder. It has been granted
exemption from payment of sales tax under the KGST Act, 1963
in a sum of Rs.2,66,654/= on the sale of tamarind seed powder
for the period from 30.07.1994 to 29.07.2001. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an application seeking additional exemption on
the basis of additional investment in a sum of Rs.3,75,932/=. It
is the case of the petitioner that no collection of tax was made in
view of Ext.P1 exemption and the petitioner filed monthly
returns and annual returns. While so, petitioner was issued with
Ext.P2 notice for the assessment years 1998 – 1999 and 1999 –
2000 and calling upon the petitioner to pay tax, stating that no
exemption existed as per the assessment records. Thereafter,
Ext.P3 order was passed rejecting the application for additional
exemption claimed on the basis of additional investment.
Moreover, the exemption already granted under Ext.P1 came to
be limited to the period from 30.07.1994 to 31.12.1996.
WPC. 32062/06 P 3
Exts.P4 and P5 are the assessment orders for the years 1998 –
1999 and 1999 – 2000 by which tax came to be levied on the
entire turnover returned and demanded balance tax and
substantial amounts towards interest. Similarly, assessment was
completed for the year 2000 – 2001 and Ext.P6 assessment order
was issued for the said year. Thereafter, petitioner filed Appeal
and after condoning the delay, Ext.P7 order was issued. By
Ext.P7, the third respondent directed the second respondent to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass fresh orders. It is
thereupon that Ext.P8 impugned order was passed.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Government Pleader. The case is taken up for final
hearing by consent and the Government Pleader submits that no
Counter Affidavit is necessary.
4. In Ext.P8, what is stated is that “the Judgment of the
Honourable High Court is for M/s. Sreeramakrishna Feeds,
Pathanamthitta and this unit is not a petitioner in the above case.
Moreover, the unit is not working at present.”
WPC. 32062/06 P 4
5. It is pointed out by the counsel for petitioner that this is
in the teeth of Ext.P7 order passed by the State Level
Committee. The State Level Committee had categorically
referred to the case of M/s. Sreeramakrishna Feeds and the Writ
Appeal filed by it and found that on the basis of the Judgment in
the Writ Appeal, as soon as the tamarind powder is produced
from the seed, a new commodity known as separate and distinct
commodity having its own use is formed. It is thereafter the
Committee has held as follows:
“The Committee after detailed discussion
decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal
and held that the unit is eligible to get STE for seven
years from 30.7.94 to 29.7.01 in the light of the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated
6.8.04 in W.A. No.664/99 filed by M/s. Sree
Ramakrishna Feeds deciding that conversion of
Tamarind Seed Powder satisfied the definition of
manufacture. The committee also resolved that the
unit is eligible to get STE on the additional
investment in Delivery Vehicle as per Rules. The
SLC therefore authorized the DLC, Alappuzha to
WPC. 32062/06 P 5
reconsider the claim of the unit and pass fresh
orders. The appeal dated 17.9.04 filed by the unit is
disposed of as above.”
6. It is thereafter that Ext.P8 order has been passed. Both
the grounds stated in Ext.P8 to reject the claim of the petitioner
appear to be quite untenable. in fact, learned Government
Pleader is unable to rebut the case of the petitioner that the
grounds stated in Ext.P8 are unsustainable in which case, the
matter requires to be reconsidered. Accordingly, on the
reasoning that the reasons which have been stated in Ext.P8 for
rejecting the claim are unsustainable, Ext.P8 order is quashed
and there will be a direction to the second respondent to re-do
the matter as directed in Ext.P7. Fresh orders in accordance
with law shall be passed within a period of two months from the
date of production of a copy of this Judgment. Upon the order
being passed by the second respondent, the same will be
produced before the fourth respondent who will take a decision
on the same in the light of the order and in accordance with law.
WPC. 32062/06 P 6
Exts.P4 to P6 will not stand in the way of appropriate orders
being passed on the basis of the order as may be passed by the
second respondent which will be produced by him before the
fourth respondent.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy//
PS to Judge