IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31385 of 2003(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. SARK CABLES PVT. LTD., NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR TAX EXEMPTION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, MEMBER SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY SHRI.TEKCHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31385/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ORDER OF R3 DATED 18/03/1998 GRANTING SALES TAX EXEMPTION TO PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SALES TAX EXEMPTION DATED 08/03/2000 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/12/2000 ISSUED BY R3. P4 : COPY OF APPEAL DATED 30/12/2000 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/08/2001 ISSUED BY R2. P6 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/03/2002 ISSUED BY R3. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31385 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Petitioner applied for sales tax exemption on additional investment for diversification, modernisation and expansion scheme covered under notification SRO 1729/1993. Admittedly, exemption is being granted on investment on plant and machinery. However, petitioner's claim pertaining to exemption on investment on land development and building construction was rejected as the same is not permissible. Even though, learned counsel submitted that investment on land development and building construction also is under diversification, modernisation and expansion scheme, the exemption cannot be granted because notification does not authorise it. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg