IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 27510 of 2002(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.E.MEERAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.EASTERN FOODS, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITEE FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, IDUKKI. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEVICOLAM. BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.46740/2002 IN O.P. NO.27510/2002 DISMISSED: 25.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.NIL PRSENTED BEFORE R2. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.6.1.2000 ISSUED BY R2. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.15.2.2000 PRESENTED BEFORE R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.12.8.2002 ISSUED BY R2. P5: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.367 DT.18.2.1988 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR. P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO.18641/2002 DT.8.7.2002. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.27510 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. The petitioner is challenging partial disallowance of sales tax exemption claimed by him for the new industrial unit. The first grievance is against disallowance of exemption pertaining to the value of land. It is seen from the counter affidavit that value of land is only Rs.49,450/-. In view of this court's judgment in O.P. No.18641/2002 dated 8.7.2002, the petitioner is entitled to sales tax exemption by reckoning the value of land in which factory building is constructed. However, the next contention is against partial disallowance of exemption on value of the building. It is seen from the counter affidavit that disallowance is made in excess of value estimated at Rs.2,000/- per square meter. Even though counsel contended that petitioner had expended actual amount claimed, I do not think any ground to interfere with the limitation of value on factory building because on facts, respondents found that the value shown is inflated and reasonable amount is fixed for the facotry building i.e. at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per square meter. The next contention pertains to disallowance of exemption for the period for 2 which the factory has not worked. Government Pleader has referred to findings in para 8 of the counter affidavit wherein the General Manager, District Industries Centre on local inspection found that the factory was locked out and later plant and machinery were dismantled and shifted by the petitioner in 2001 itself. In any case it is reported that the entire sales tax exemption granted was absorbed in the first year of business itself. Since the petitioner is found to have closed the factory, dismantled and shifted the plant and machinery, there is nothing wrong in limiting the exemption till date of closure of the unit. The O.P. is partly allowed as above i.e., granting exemption for value of land. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms