IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13282 of 2004(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.EXCEL GLASSES LIMITED, PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UDAYANAGAR, PATHIRAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY B.G. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT (COM) BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER (TAXES) MR.K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 275 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13282 of 2004(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO NO.1729/93 DATED 03/11/1993 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCING CERTAIN CONCESSIONS IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO NO.588/96 AMENDING EXHIBIT P2 NOTIFICATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO NO.250/99 AMENDING AGAIN EXHIBIT P1. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN LINE WITH EXHIBIT P1 IN RELATION TO CENTRAL SALES TAX AS SRO 1730/93. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 21/01/1998 FOR CONCESSION UNDER THE DEFERMENT SCHEME. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DATED 28/02/2001 CERTIFYING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE PETITIONER FOR AVAILING CONCESSION UNDER DEFERMENT SCHEME. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIOER (GENERAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES DATED 30/03/2001. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED ON 28/04/2003 BY THE STATE LELVEL COMMITTEE. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 275/2004 DATED 08/01/2004. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF Rs.25 LAKHS DATED 27/01/2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000 IN RELATION TO KGST DATED 29/11/2003. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000 IN RELATION TO CST DATED 29/11/2003. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST EXHIBIT P.11. EXT.P13(a): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P.13. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST EXHIBIT P.12. EXT.P14(a): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P.14. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE RR NOTICE NO.10267 DATED 23/03/2004. WP(C).No. 13282 of 2004(F) EXT.P16: COPY OF THE RR NOTICE NO.11355 DATED 23/03/2004. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE RR NOTICE NO.11357 DATED 23/03/2004. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2004 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.13282 & 275 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Issue involved in these writ petitions relate to claim for exemption from payment of sales tax by the petitioner firm. Learned Government Pleader had made available for perusal copy of a proceedings of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Thiruvananthapuram, vide No.FC4/13320/03 dt. 11.6.2004. It is evident that appeal filed by the petitioner against rejection of sales tax exemption has been allowed by the State Level Committee, and the Deputy Commissioner, (General) Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram was directed to pass revised orders in accordance with the decision of the State Level Committee. Hence it is clear that liability of the petitioner if any will depend on the revised orders to be passed. As such the demand impugned in this writ petition cannot be enforced. W.P.(C).Nos.13282 & 275 of 2004 -2- 2. Under the above circumstances these writ petitions are disposed of as that the matter has become infructuous. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge revised assessment or demand if any made, in accordance with provisions contained in the relevant statute. 3. It is made clear that amount if any remitted by the petitioner shall be given set off/refund in accordance with orders to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb