IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7114 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. BAKE HOUSE, DEVELOPMENT PLOT NO.5, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. PRAVEEN S.DEV. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR SALE TAX EXEMPTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 7114 of 2008(V) ======================= Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that their exemption application is remanded to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of Ext.P1 order by the State Level Committee. According to the petitioner if exemption is allowed he will not have any liability to pay the amount in terms of Ext.P2 for which recovery has now been initiated by Ext.P3. However having regard to the facts, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall take and reconsider the exemption application that stands remanded as Ext.P1 order. This shall be done as expeditiously within eight weeks from production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will stand stayed on the condition that petitioner remits 1/4th due thereon. Petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. I clarified that in case the exemption is allowed, the amount payable herein will be refunded to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jp