IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 733 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34042/2006 Dated 02/09/2010 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ SHANKAR CONDUCTORS (P) LTD., UMAYANALLOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA, UMAYANALLOOR, QUILON-691509, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DINESH KUMAR SINGH. BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, QUILON. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL TAX EXEMPTION COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHAZILDAR (RR), QUILON. 5. THE SALEX TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, CHATHANNUR. 6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, T C & M, KSEB, 4TH FLOOR, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, TRIVANDRUM- 695004. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.MUHAMMED RAFEEK THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.733 OF 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed challenging judgment of the learned Single Jude declining to interfere with the impugned order declaring appellant's ineligibility for exemption from payment of sales tax. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and have also gone through the impugned judgment. The appellant is a Small Scale Industrial Unit manufacturing steel stranded aluminum conductors which is supplied to KSEB. According to the appellant, eventhough the unit was set up and started functioning later it was proposed in 1999 and therefore is entitled to sales tax exemption under S.R.O.1729/1993. The finding of the Industries Department is that appellant started commercial production only on 31.1.2004. W.A.No.733/2011 2 The learned Single Judge, though accepted the contention of the appellant that commercial production started on 10.12.2003, held that the notification under which exemption was considered and declined specifically stated that sales tax exemption will be available to Small Scale Industrial Units only if commercial production starts on or before 31.12.2000 which was further extended to 31.12.2001 by S.R.O. 295/2000. Even according to the appellant, commercial production started two years after the last date provided under notification S.R.O.295/2000. Admittedly, application for sales tax exemption was submitted on 4.1.2005 which obviously means that commercial production would not have started anywhere near the time-frame provided for getting sales tax exemption. 3. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order impugned on the ground that the main condition of the notification under which exemption has to be considered is not satisfied. It is against this judgment, the appeal is filed before this Court. W.A.No.733/2011 3 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who contended that appellant's claim for exemption should be considered under S.R.O.1729/1993 because the appellant started production in 1999 itself. However, there is no material to substantiate the appellant's claim because what is relevant for the purpose of exemption is commercial production. Admittedly, appellant got orders from KSEB only in 2003 and commercial production was started in 2004 and application for sales tax exemption itself was submitted only on 4.1.2005. Eventhough the appellant claimed exemption based on decision of the Supreme Court in MRF Ltd., Kottayam v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment, Sales Tax) and Others [2006 (3) KLJ 523], the learned Single Judge found that the appellant has not challenged notification under which exemption applied for was considered and declined. Admittedly, appellant does not satisfy the condition of S.R.O.295/2000 because commercial production was started much after the extended time which is up to 31.12.2001. So much so, the appellant cannot claim sales tax exemption based on earlier notification which was superseded 11 years back by another notification the W.A.No.733/2011 4 conditions of which are not satisfied for granting exemption. It is also to be noted that the main purchaser is KSEB which is entitled to concessional rate of sales tax at 4%. So much so, we do not find any grievance for the appellant against demand of sales tax which could be collected from the buyer of the goods. Writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ( P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/23/8