IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 104 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.SHEENA J.MAMPARAMBIL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :23/09/2009
O R D E R
(C.R)
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
STRV Nos. No.104, 140 & 141 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated, the 23rd day of September, 2009
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Revisions are filed by the State against the orders
of the Tribunal declaring eligibility for concessional rate
of tax on the respondent on the sale of rubber products
under notification G.O(MS) 124/88/ID dated 31.8.1988.
The Tribunal allowed the claim based on judgment of this
court reported in All Kerala S.S. Tread Rubber
Manufacturers Association v. State of Kerala {(2000)
8 KTR 361). However, the Government Pleader referred
to the judgment of this Court in S.T.Rev. Nos. 360, 361
and 367 of 2008 dated 6th March, 2009 wherein this
Court held that by virtue of subsequent notifications,
benefit of G.O.(MS) 124/88/ID is not available to the
party in that case. Notification G.O.(MS) 124/88/ID
ST.Rev.104,140 &141/09
-:2:-
issued by the Government on 31.8.1988 is the notification
issued by the industries department granting certain
concessions to new industrial units and for continuation of
the same. However, Section 2 (xvA) was introduced in
KGST Act, with effect from 1.4.1998 declaring notifications
referred to in the Act are those issued only under section
10 of the KGST Act. In other words, subsequent to the
introduction of the above provisions, general notifications
issued by other Government departments, cannot be
relied on for the purpose of tax exemption or concession.
The assessments in all these cases are for the years
1998-99; 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Therefore,
notification relied on by the Tribunal for granting
concession to the respondent has no application. In fact,
under notification 1090/99, all previous notifications
issued even under Section 10 of the KGST Act are
superseded. Since the Tribunal has allowed the appeal
without reference to the amendment to the statute and
the relevant notifications including the one referred
ST.Rev.104,140 &141/09
-:3:-
above, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and that of
the first appellate authority and remand the matter to the
assessing officer for applying the correct rate of tax based
on notifications issued under section 10 of the KGST Act.
It is for the assessee to rely on any notification other
than the G.O(MS) 124/88 of the KGST Act to claim
concessional rate of tax.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
V.K.MOHANAN,
JUDGE
kvm/-
ST.Rev.104,140 &141/09
-:4:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No.
JUDGMENT
Dated:..