IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 360 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2007 IN TA.126/2007 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPL. G.P. SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S. LEO RUBBERS, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, ALONG WITH STRV NO.361 OF 2008, & STRV NO.367 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. Nos.360, 361 & 367 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the revisions filed by the department is whether the Tribunal was justified in granting concessional rate for the rubber product namely, Hawai Chappal, manufactured and sold by the petitioner for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001- 2002 based on G.O.(MS)124/88/ID dated 31.8.1988. We have heard Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent. In allowing the claim the Tribunal has relied on decision of this court in ALL KERALA S.S. TREAD RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF KERALA (2000) 8 KTR 361. Respondent is not a new industrial unit, but was engaged in manufacture of Hawai chappals for long. However, on going through G.O.(MS)124/88/ID dated 31.8.1988, it is seen that the Government has decided to grant exemption for new industries by way of purchase tax on rubber and concessional rate of 2 tax at 3% on the products sold by new industries. Obviously this order is not issued under Section 10 of the KGST Act and in fact there are several subsequent notifications issued by the Government on SSI exemption and for new industries. Government Pleader submitted that the Government Order of 1988 relied on by the Tribunal has been modified several times and under SRO 1090/99, exemption granted has been withdrawn. We are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal because G.O.(MS)/124/88/ID obviously does not apply to respondent and Tribunal has not referred to subsequent notification. We, therefore, allow the revisions by reversing the orders of the Tribunal but restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for giving opportunity to the respondent to produce notification, if any, that entitle them for concessional rate, failing which original assessments will stand confirmed. The Assessing Officer is directed to complete assessments within two months from date of production of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms