IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 662 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN STRV.34/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- M/S.THREE STAR GRANITES PRIVATE LTD., ERUMAPETTY,THRISSUR,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-P.BHASI. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH R.P. NO.663/2009 ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.662/2009 in S.T. Rev. No.34/2009 & R.P. No.663/2009 in W.P.(C) No.31817/2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petitions are filed against common judgment in the connected S.T. Revision case and Writ Petition wherein this court upheld rejection of claim of exemption on stone chips (jelly) produced and sold by the petitioners. Even though this court decided the case against the petitioners following judgment of the Supreme Court and that of this court referred to therein, petitioners have taken the stand in the Review Petition that the benefit of exemption claimed by them is under Notification SRO 654/1989 as amended by SRO 521/1992, whereas the decision rendered by this court and the Supreme Court are with reference to SRO 499/1990 which provides for exemption to SSI units engaged in manufacture and sale of goods. The distinction drawn by the counsel in the Review Petitions is that there is no definition of manufacture in the Notification relevant for the petitioner which is a 2 medium scale industrial unit, whereas there is a specific definition of manufacture in the notification providing for exemption to SSI units. On going through the notification we find that exemption granted under Notification SRO 654/89 is for the articles produced and sold by new industrial units. We do not think the production referred to in the Notification is anything different from manufacture as conceived in the other notification because if petitioner's claim is accepted, what will happen is that medium and large scale units engaged in production and sale of the very same product namely, stone chip will get exemption, whereas the small scale industrial units, a more favoured section of industries, will be declined the benefit by virtue of the decision of Supreme Court relied on by us in the judgment. We do not think such discriminatory treatment is expected by the Government while granting exemption to the industries falling under various categories. Since discrimination cannot be expected from the Government, we feel the benefit that is not available to the SSI units cannot be granted to the petitioner which is a medium scale industry as that is not intended under the Notification. Review Petitions are consequently dismissed. 3 However, to settle liability, the petitioner is granted three equal monthly instalments to clear the arrears of tax with interest, first of which will be paid on or before 15th August, 2009 and the balance on or before the 15th of two succeeding months. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms