IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 17880 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADI GRAMODYOG BHAVAN, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, COCHIN-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, B.B.GIRIMATH. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, IV CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1,3& 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF SRO 1727/98 ISSUED BY R3. P2: .DO. SRO 427/95 .DO. P3: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY R1 FOR THE YEAR 1995-96 DT.20.3.2000. P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P. 11259/2000 DT.28.10.2005. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R4 DT.16.5.2006. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.17880 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging notification granting exemption to Khadi products in the State while disallowing exemption on Khadi products brought and sold in Kerala from other States. According to the petitioner, the exemption is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is for declaring exemption for all Khadi products irrespective of place of manufacture in the country. The notification challenged in this case was issued 11 years prior to the date of filing of W.P. The W.P. was filed on 7.7.2006 by which time the VAT regime has taken over the scheme of payment and recovery of sales tax. Therefore, I do not think there is any need to consider challenge against the notification issued more than 10 years prior to the date of filing of W.P. The issue has also become academic in nature because in terms of the notification parties have claimed exemption and tax also have been remitted. The notification is obviously not in force as of now because under the VAT regime, tax is payable by all dealers except for products specifically exempted. The W.P. is accordingly closed leaving freedom to 2 the petitioner to bring grievance, if any, under the VAT Act to the Government for granting appropriate relief. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms