IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 118 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.129/2008 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVVISION PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- M/S. DAMODAR CASHEW CO., KOTTACHERY, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER B.YOGESH PRABHU. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH STRV NO.120/2008 ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... S.T.Rev. Nos.118 & 120 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised in the connected revisions filed by the very same assessee is whether Tribunal was justified in limiting the exemption on Central Sales Tax payable under Notification SRO 1730/1993 subject to the ceiling provided in the certificate of exemption issued under SRO 1729/1993. Assessee set up a new cashew factory for processing raw cashew nut to cashew kernel. The product is sold locally, interstate and in export. Under SRO 1729/93 assessee was issued a certificate granting exemption for a period of seven years subject to certain limitations based on investment. While granting exemption for the tax payable under the KGST Act and under CST Act, the Assessing Officer applied the ceiling which was based on investment. Assessee's case was that SRO 1730/93 issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act is an absolute exemption under which assessee is entitled to tax exemption under the CST Act for a period of seven years from the date of 2 commencement of production. However, the assessing authority after referring to the notification, rejected the claim because exemption granted under SRO 1730/93 is specifically subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in SRO 1729/93 under which certificate of exemption was issued to the assessee. This was confirmed by the Tribunal against which these revisions are filed. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. We do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order because exemption granted under SRO 1730/93 is not absolutely for a period of seven years as claimed by the assessee. On the other hand, exemption granted under SRO 1730/93, though issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act, is subject to the restrictions contained in SRO 1729/93 by which exemption is limited to 100% of investment in plant and machinery and land. It is within the powers of the Government to combine incentives both under Central Act as well as State Act. In fact, this is exactly what is done under the two notifications by the Government, by which exemption was limited to the ceiling provided in the certificate issued to the assessee which is not 3 under challenge. In the circumstances, S.T. Revision cases are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms