IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2092 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BAKE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT PLOT NO.5 MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. PRAVEEN.S.DEV. BY ADV. MR.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, VIKAS BHAVAN TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR SALE TAX EXEMPTION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2092 OF 2009 Y ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the state level committee dated 25.5.2007. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the district level committee dated 8.9.2008. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner purchased a unit in an auction conducted by the KFC. The unit was originally being run by one Advanced Technocrafts. The petitioner raised an issue of exemption. Exemption was originally granted only for an amount of Rs.5,63,274/-. The petitioner carried the matter before the state level committee and thereafter filed a review petition against the order passed by the state level committee. Ext.P1 resulted. Taking note of the proviso to STE Manual issued in GO(Ms) No.169/95/ID dated 1.11.1995, it is ordered, inter alia, as follows: “ (1) The District Level Committee, Kollam, will reconsider the case and allow the benefit for WPC.2092/09 : 2 : the building, provided there is an unavailed quantum/monetary limit sanctioned to the old unit. While doing so, the eligibility for the same in respect of the appellant unit shall be determined at the lower of the original cost of the building considered for sanctioning Sales Tax Exemption to the unit previously existed there and the unavailed quantum by the said unit out of the total monetary limit sanctioned to that unit. It is made clear that costs towards renovation of old building are not admissible under the scheme. Consequently, Ext.P2 order was passed sanctioning Rs.93,550/- towards investment in the building by the former unit. 3. Counter affidavit is filed in which Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) are produced. Ext.R2(a) is the sanction letter. It indicates that the investment for the building and electrical installations calculated at Rs.93,550/- is made by the previous owner. Ext.R2(b) is apparently passed taking note of some subsequent developments and therein 90% of the investment on land is shown as Rs.1,34,100/-. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. The principal issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no warrant for the WPC.2092/09 : 3 : qualification introduced in Ext.P1 which I have extracted. In other words, it is petitioner's case that there is no basis in law to qualify the investment made by the petitioner in the building in terms of Clause 4 by introducing the concept of the cost of the building to the previous owner. There is no answer to this allegation in the counter affidavit. I feel that this is a matter which is to be examined by the state level committee and, therefore, the matter has to be reconsidered. 5. Accordingly, Exts.P1 and P2 are quashed and the 1st respondent will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and keeping in mind also Clause 4 of the STE Manual, within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks