IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29130 of 2008(P) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- EDANADU DEVELOPMENT CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESE4NTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OMANA, A. NAIR, KOTHALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAGHUNANDANAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, 11ND CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY SHRI K.P. HARISH, SC. R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 29130 OF 2008 P -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th November, 2008 JUDGMENT There are two prayers in the Writ Petition. They are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent - Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board to issue sales tax exemption certificate to its approved unit - petitioner society as per Exhibit P3 Government Notification immediately to get permanent exemption of paying Sales Tax. (ii) Issue a declaration to the effect that the petitioner society is not liable to pay sales tax for the assessment year 1985to 1988 - 89 envisaged under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as per SRO 799/76, conferred by Section 10 of the KGST Act, 1963 (15 of 1963).” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: It is a registered Society manufacturing splints and veneers WPC.29130/08 P 2 for match boxes, employing twentyfive women workers. It is stated that the first respondent had sanctioned a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/= as business loan. Of this amount, Rs.75,000/= was given as working capital (Ext.P2). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax on the strength of Government Order dated 21.7.1976 (Ext.P3). However, petitioner came to be assessed to tax for the years 1985 - 1986 to 1988 - 1989. Petitioner preferred a civil suit which came to be dismissed as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is a copy of the Plaint in OS No.110/97, and Exts.P6 and P7 are copies of the Judgments dismissing the Suits filed by the petitioner. Ext.P8 is a notice of attachment of immovable property. In the meantime, the petitioner Society filed W.P.(C). No.14653/07 which came to be dismissed. Petitioner did not comply with the interim order passed therein. It is further stated that the petitioner Society stopped production and intimated the state of affairs on 28.10.2000. It is stated that now the petitioner is threatened with revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of sales tax WPC.29130/08 P 3 arrears for the years 1985 - 1986 to 1988 - 1989. 3. I heard Shri R. Reghunandana Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.P. Harish, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. As far as the second prayer is concerned, apparently it is on the basis that the petitioner is entitled to exemption for the years 1986 - 1986 to 1988 - 1989. The assessment orders are not in challenge. They have become final, and a declaration in the nature sought, cannot be granted, also for the reason as pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption. As pointed out by the learned counsel for first respondent, Ext.P2 would show that the Khadi and Village Industries Board was involved from the year 1989. Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of exemption prior to 1989. I decline prayer No.(ii). As far as the first prayer is concerned, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that amounts are due from the petitioner towards the loan given WPC.29130/08 P 4 by the first respondent and if the petitioner applies for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, the first respondent will extend the eligible benefit to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Certificate which the petitioner may be entitled, will be issued in accordance with law to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has not applied for getting eligibility/exemption certificate. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner makes an application before the first respondent claiming the benefit of One Time Settlement and also remits Rs.75,000/= along with the application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the first respondent will consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law. If the petitioner applies for grant of exemption certificate for the eligible period within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the first respondent will consider the same and take a decision thereon in accordance with law and grant such eligibility WPC.29130/08 P 5 certificate as the petitioner is legally entitled to. Needless to say, if the petitioner does not file the application for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme accompanied by payment of Rs.75,000/=(Rupees Seventyfive Thousand) as aforesaid, the first respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge