IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 OP.No. 920 of 2002(H) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. SUEERA ALLOYS PRIVATE LTD., V-973, NATTUKAL, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, R.ELANGOVAN. BY ADV. MR.C.K.THANU PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION, REPRESENTED BY CONVENOR, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. ADV.MR. ANTONY MUKKATH -GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 920 of 2002 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.1620 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO.920 OF 2002 DISMISSED 21.10.2010 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 1.10.1997 PRESENTED BEFORE R3. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.T/8270/96/L.DIS DTD 20-5-1998 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPEAL IN FORM 7 DTD 5—3-2001 PRESENTED BEFORE R2. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER NO.FC3/6463/01 DTD 7-8-2001 ISSUED BY R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P. No.920 OF 2002 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T This original petition is filed by an industrial establishment aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Director of Industries and Commerce, wherein the decision of the State Level Committee for sales tax exemption under SRO No.1729/93 rejecting the application for exemption under the SRO has been communicated to the petitioner, in his capacity as the Convenor of the State Level Committee. Apart from the contentions on merits, the petitioner has taken a specific ground that the State Level Committee had rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the decision of the State Level Committee involves very serious civil consequences to the petitioner and going by the Supreme Court decision in C.B. Gautham v. Union of India and others [JT 1992(6) SC 678] and that of this Court in Indu Oil Mills v. State of Kerala and others [(1996) 4 KTR 415], any provision of any law, which O.P.No.920/02 2 denies a reasonable opportunity of being heard, while passing orders involving civil consequences, would be unconstitutional and invalid. Therefore, according to the petitioner, although in the relevant provisions, there is no provision for a hearing, such a provision should be read into the relevant SRO and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed in this original petition. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The petitioner is an SSI unit. They are seeking sales tax exemption to the tune of Rs.1,57,58,000/-. The question involved is a very serious question of law as to whether simply because part of the manufacturing activity of the product manufactured in the petitioner's establishment takes place in another factory of the petitioner, which is a newly started one, the petitioner can be denied sales tax exemption. In fact, the petitioner also relies on a decision of this Court on identical facts in favour of a similarly situated assessee in Deputy Commissiner (Law) v. Aleyamma Sebastian [(1998) 110 STC 363]. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this was an eminently fit case where the second respondent State Level O.P.No.920/02 3 Committee ought to have considered the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the second respondent State Level Committee to re-consider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and considering all their contentions and entering specific findings on each and every contention of the petitioner. Fresh decision shall be taken by the second respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd O.P.No.920/02 4 O.P.No.920/02 5