IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 3115 of 2007(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD. WISE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE EAST,PALAKKAD 678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (PLANT ACCOUNTING), MR. NEERAJ KHETAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH VELLAPALLY (Sr.) SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.JAYASANKAR SRI.ANIL D.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(GENERAL), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN for R1 to R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2007, THE COURT ON 30/11/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3115/2007 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO 1729/93 AS AMENDED BY NOTIFICATIONS SRO 1092/99 AND SRO 295/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 07/01/2004 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN OP.NO.8563 OF 2003 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 15/06/2004 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2004. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DTD. 29/07/04. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.17308/2004 DTD. 03/09/2004 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.FC4/19094/01 DTD. 11/10/2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN THAT REGARD BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/05/1999 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/05/1999 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KSIDC. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20/06/2001 MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION UNDER THE NOTIFICATION. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/06/2003 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/07/206 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.15858/06. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.3115/2007 U EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/07/2006 IN WP(C) NO. 15858/06 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.4-6410/04 DTD. 20/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE LAWYERS' NOTICE DTD. 30TH JUNE 2005 (SENT FOR THE PETITIONER) SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/06/2006 THE PETITIONER REQUESTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/06/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/07/2006 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/07/06 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/07/2006 NO.C4-6410/04, THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/08/2006 WITHOUT ENCLOSURE, FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C.4-46410/04 DTD. 20/09/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 29/09/2006 PETITIONER SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P23: COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DTD. 01/12/2006 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES. EXT.P24: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/01/2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P25: COPY OF THE FLOW CHART WHICH WILL SHOW THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE PETITIONER'S PLANT AT KANJIKODE FOR MANUFACTURE OF SOFT DRINKS. Kss ..3/- ..3.... WPC.NO.3115/2007 U EXT.P26: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/06/1999 FROM THE CHAIRMAN, KSIDC. EXT.P27: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ITEMS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY IN RESPECT OF WHICH FIRM ORDERS WERE PLACED PRIOR TO 01/01/2000 ARE GIVEN IN A TABULAR FORM. EXT.P28: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. C206/03-04/ST DTD. 05/09/2003 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. EXT.P29: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3112 2676/02-03 DTD. 04/02/2003 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P30: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.C 205/03-04/ST DTD. 05/09/2003 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. EXT.P31: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.C-205,206/03-04/ST, DOCUMENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE RS.1 CRORE, DTD. 16/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. EXT.P32: COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROTEST DTD. 16/03/2007 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. EXT.P33: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/03/2007 ISSUED U/S.17(3) OF THE KGST ACT (KGST A.Y.2002-03) ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD. EXT.P34: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO.15858 OF 2006 (K) DTD. 25/01/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 11/10/2004 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V. GIRI ,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 3115 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P24 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (General), Department of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, declining its application for exemption from payment of sales tax in terms of SRO 1729/93 as amended by SRO 1092/99 and modified by SRO 295/2000. Though SRO.No.1729/93 has been considered and discussed by this court as also the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, the scope and ambit of the two other notifications have not been squarely considered by this court, except on a previous occasion involving the same assessee, in a judgment inter partes in OP.No.8563/2006. By the said judgment (Ext.P2) this court had remitted the question of eligibility in terms of SRO 1729/93 to be considered by the Director of Industries. A conditional certificate of eligibility was issued by the Director. The Deputy Commissioner (General) declined to issue a certificate of exemption in favour of the petitioner and hence this writ petition WPC.3115 /2007 2 challenging the order passed by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The petitioner, in 1999, decided to set up a medium scale unit for the manufacture of soft drinks under the brand name of 'Pepsi'. The petitioner contends that it's decision to set up the unit in Kerala was largely influenced by the fact that the Government of Kerala had, with a view to attracting investment into the State, announced certain tax exemption schemes for the benefit of new industrial units established in the State. The notification referred to in this regard is SRO.No.1729/93. Apparently a major portion of the controversy which is currently involved in so far as the petitioner is concerned, would not have arisen but for the amendment of SRO. No. 1729/93 by SRO.No.1092/99 which was later modified by SRO 295/2000. Three notifications have been produced as Ext.P1. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to SRO.No. 1729/93 as Ext.P1, SRO.Nos.1092/99 and 295/2000 as Ext.P1(a) and P1(b). As per clause (4) of Ext.P1 notification, in the case of new industrial units under medium and large scale category there shall be an exemption for a period of seven years from the date of commencement of commercial production- (a) in respect of the WPC.3115 /2007 3 tax payable by such units under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (i) on the turn over of sale of goods manufactured and sold by them within the State and (ii) on the turn over of goods, taxable at the point of last purchase in the State, which are used by such units for manufacturing other goods for sale within the State or interstate (b) in respect of the surcharge payable under section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. Clause 10 of Ext.P1 notification enumerates the conditions and restrictions in relation to grant of exemption in the case of new industrial units. The aggregate exemption in respect of sales tax, purchase tax, surcharge and central sales tax payable together shall not exceed 100% of the fixed capital investment. Clauses 10(b) and 10( c) deal with the issuance of an eligibility certificate and orders of exemption. The same reads as follows:- “10(b). Eligibility certificate for medium and large scale industries assisted by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation or the Kerala Financial Corporation will be issued by the Corporation which render assistance and in other cases by the Director, on application by such WPC.3115 /2007 4 units, and orders of exemption will be issued by the Secretary, Board of revenue (Taxes), Thiruvananthapuram. 10(c). Eligibility certificate and orders on exemption will be issued by the authorities mentioned in sub clause (b) above, if the unit is eligible for exemption or deferment of taxes and the units satisfy the conditions for the exemptions or deferment of taxes.” 3. In the explanation to clause 10 of the notification the term 'manufacture' has been defined as follows:- “Manufacture' shall mean the use of raw materials and production of goods commercially different from the raw materials used but shall not include mere packing of goods, polishing, cleaning, grading, drying blending or mixing different varieties of the same goods, sawing, garbling, processing one form of goods into another form of the same goods by mixing with chemicals or gas, fumigation or any other process applied for preserving the goods in good condition or for easy WPC.3115 /2007 5 transportation. The process of producing desiccated coconut shall be deemed to be 'manufacture' for the purpose of this notification.” 4. By SRO.No.1092/99 (Ext.P1(a), the Government effected modification to the exemption granted under clause 1 to 7 of Ext.P1 notification. By the said notification it was declared that SRO.No.1729/93 shall apply only to the following categories of industries. Sub clause (i) and (ii) as inserted by the notification SRO.1092/99 alone are extracted hereunder, the other clause are not relevant. “i) new industrial units other than public sector undertakings which have been set up or have commenced commercial production before 1st January, 2000. ii) new industrial units other than public sector undertakings which have taken effective steps for setting up new industrial unit prior to the 1st day of January, 2000. An industrial unit shall be considered to have taken such effective steps if it has (a) obtained provisional registration (applicable WPC.3115 /2007 6 only in the case of SSI units), (b) owned or acquired or has been allotted land for establishing the industrial unit and © applied for financial support from any regular financial institution/government or acquired the necessary plant and machinery provided that the unit commences commercial production on or before the 31st day of December, 2000.” 5. The aforementioned notification Ext.P1(a) SRO.No.1092/99 was again modified by SRO.No.295/2000 (Ext.P1(b). The amended clause (ii) along with the clause which was inserted by SRO.No.295/2000 reads as follows:- “(ii)new industrial units other than public sector undertakings which have taken effective steps for setting up new industrial unit prior to the 1st day of January, 2000. An industrial unit shall be considered to have taken such effective steps if it has (a) obtained provisional registration (applicable only in the case of SSI units), (b) owned or acquired or has been allotted land for establishing the industrial unit and applied for financial support from any regular financial institution/Government before WPC.3115 /2007 7 1.1.2000 or © in the case of self financed units acquired or placed firm orders for the purchase of the necessary plant and machinery before 1.1.2000 provided that the unit commences commercial production on or before the 31st December, 2001. A unit shall be deemed to have placed firm orders, for the purchase of plant, machinery and equipments if such unit had made any advance payments therefore by means of demand draft or cheque which has been credited to the account of the seller prior to 1st January, 2000. The onus of proving that an industrial unit had placed firm order for purchase of such plant, machinery and equipments prior to 1st January, 2000 shall be on such industrial unit”. 6. The amendment brought about by Ext.P1(a) and P1(b) notifications thus stood incorporated in SRO.No.1729/93. The net effect of the amendment notifications was therefore to restrict the exemption, provided by SRO.No.1729/93, to the following categories of units: (i) new industrial units which have been set up or which have commenced commercial production before 1.1.2000 (ii) new industrial units which have taken WPC.3115 /2007 8 effective steps for setting up new industrial unit prior to the first day of January, 2000. (iii) An existing unit which has taken effective steps for diversification, expansion or modernisation prior to the 1st day of January, 2000. (iv) a sick small scale industrial unit which has been registered as a sick unit before the Director prior to the 1st day of January, 2000. 7. The assessee in the present case claims that it falls under category (ii). The other categories are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. 8. In the explanatory note to the amendment notification it is stated that the Government have decided to withdraw the exemption/deferment granted to industrial unit as per notification SRO.No.1729/93 which are set up on or after 1.1.2000. The benefit of exemption/deferment, as the case may be, will be granted in the case of units which have already commenced commercial production or have set up or which have taken effective steps to set up industrial units prior to 1.1.2000. WPC.3115 /2007 9 9. In other words, the amendment notification was intended to abridge the benefit of exemption granted under SRO.No.1729/93. The benefit of SRO.No.1729/93 will continue to be available to units which have commenced commercial production prior to 1.1.2000, to units which have been set up prior to 1.1.2000 and to units which have taken effective steps for setting up the new industrial unit prior to the first day of January, 2000. The controversy in the present case is centered around the issue as to whether the petitioner had taken effective steps for setting up the new industrial unit prior to the first day of January, 2000. 10. The notifications indicate what could be considered as effective steps for setting up the new industrial unit. They are (a) obtained provisional registration in the case of SSI units (b) owned or acquired or has been allotted land for establishing the industrial unit and applied for financial support from any regular financial institution/Government before 1.1.2000 © in the case of self financing units, acquired or has placed firm orders for the purchase of necessary plant and machinery before 1.1.2000. For all the aforementioned categories it is necessary that the unit commences commercial production on or before 31.12.2001. WPC.3115 /2007 10 The deeming provision inserted by SRO.No.295/2000 provides that the units have placed firm orders for the purchase of plant and machinery and equipments if such unit had made any advance payments therefore, by means of demand draft or cheque which has been credited to the account of the seller prior to 1st January, 2000. The onus of proving that an industrial unit had placed firm orders in the manner aforementioned shall be on such industrial unit. As noted above the amendment notification restricts the benefit of exemption otherwise granted under SRO.No.1729/93 to certain categories of units as enumerated above. The curtailment of the benefit of exemption otherwise promised under SRO.NO.1729/93 could have been challenged on the premise that such curtailment is hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, if such curtailment had come about abruptly without any saving clauses as such. Apparently, it is to obviate such challenge that the amendment notification provided that the exemption will continue to be available to units which have commenced commercial production or set up prior to 1.1.2000 and also to units which have taken effective steps to set up an industrial unit prior to 1.1.2000 so as to come under the purview of second category noted above. WPC.3115 /2007 11 11. The petitioner started commercial production on 6.3.2001 and on 20.6.2001, it applied for sales tax exemption. By an order dated 8.6.2003 the Director rejected the petitioner's application for eligibility holding that the petitioner had not acquired the necessary plant and machinery prior to 1.1.2000. The said order was challenged in OP.No.8563/2003. The order of the Director was set aside by this court and the matter was remitted back to the Director to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made in the judgment and in accordance with law. Ext.P2 judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.543/2004 (Ext.P3). A special leave petition preferred against the same as SLP (Civil)No. 17308/2004 was dismissed as per Ext.P5. Subsequently, the issue was reconsidered by the Director, who passed fresh order (produced as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5) inter alia certifying that the petitioner had started commercial production for soft drinks and syrup on 7.3.2001 and the fixed capital investment eligible for sales tax exemption is Rs.30,46,94,552/-. After having certified the above mentioned facts, the Director of Industries included a rider to the following effect: WPC.3115 /2007 12 “The eligibility certificate is issued on the condition that the Deputy Commissioner (General), Commercial Taxes who is the sanctioning authority shall decide the eligibility of the unit for sales tax exemption under the relevant notifications, vide general procedure in this regard clarified by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 15.3.2003” 12. The certificate of eligibility Ext.R1(a) was issued on 11.10.2004. According to the petitioner, a copy of the said certificate was made available to it only when it was produced as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit filed on 22.2.2007. 13. On 20.6.2005 the third respondent Deputy Commissioner (General), the competent authority to issue the certificate of exemption proposed to reject the petitioner's claim for sales tax exemption on the premise that the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions in the notification. The gist of the notice is to the effect that only a new industrial unit which had taken effective steps for setting up a new industrial unit prior to 1.1.2000 is eligible for exemption. The petitioner had claimed that effective steps were taken by it and this was indicated by the WPC.3115 /2007 13 placement of firm orders for the supply of plant and machinery. The total claim of investment in plant and machinery is Rs.3210.13 lakhs. Thus the total cost of plant and machinery of the unit as claimed by the petitioner is Rs.32,10,13,534/-; that is necessary plant and machinery required for each and every stage of production. In the case of the company which is engaged in the production of soft drinks, necessary plant and machinery would mean machinery for drawing of water required in the manufacture of soft drinks, its purification to conform to requisite standards, machinery required for manufacturing the mix which goes into the making of the ultimate product, and machinery for the manufacture of the soft drink by mixing the ingredients in water and bottling and sealing and labelling of the soft drink. Necessary plant and machinery are all the components of machinery and equipments constituting a complete production plant, that is machinery necessary for all the stages of production right from the stage of drawing of water to the stages of manufacturing, bottling, sealing and labelling. After having said so, the notice further alleged that the unit had paid an advance payment only for the following four items prior to 1.1.2000: WPC.3115 /2007 14 ____________________________________________________ Name of Description of Machinery Amount of Date of supplier Machinery cost advance payment ____________________________________________________ 1.Selvel Pet and CSD 40,00,000 4,00,000 24.12.99 Conveyors, Conveyor Mumbai systems ____________________________________________________ 2.KHS Paramix Plant 65,00,000 9,75,000 24.12.99 Machinery consisting of (P) Ltd. Deareation Ahamedabad plant,Mixing plant, Beverage chilling plant and Carbonation plant. ____________________________________________________ Sub Total 1,05,00,000 13,75,000 ____________________________________________________ 3. Sidel India Installation, 15,00,000 4,00,000 24.12.99 (P).Ltd. commissioning Mumbai. and training of blow moulding machine. ____________________________________________________ 4. Skyline Basis civil 80,00,000 4,00,000 24.12.99 Engineering Infrastructure Contracts works Ltd. ____________________________________________________ Total 2,00,00,000 21,75,000 ======================================== WPC.3115 /2007 15 14. It is alleged that items 3 and 4 are not items of necessary plant and machinery, that therefore items 1 and 2 alone could be treated as components of necessary plant and machinery. What is contemplated by the notification is therefore “necessary plant and machinery” which would mean such plant and machinery as are required at all stages of production. It was alleged that the company had not taken effective steps for the purchase of necessary plant and machinery before 1.1.2000 and consequently it would not be entitled to sales tax exemption. The assessee was given time to file objections to this notice. 15. In Ext.P14 objections sent through the Advocate the assessee mainly asserted that the issue of eligibility having been considered by the Director of Industries, it is not open to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to again consider that question. Considerable reliance was also placed on observations in Ext.P2 judgment as to what could constitute effective steps for acquiring necessary plant and machinery. It was asserted that the proposal contained in Ext.P13 seems to be in direct conflict with the observations contained in Exts.P2 and P3 judgments. The assessee also contended that the proposal as per Ext.P13 WPC.3115 /2007 16 seems to be in violation of the judgment of the High Court and therefore the assessee can attend a personal hearing only if a hearing is posted pursuant to the notice issued in accordance with the judgment. Nevertheless a further reply was sent on 13.7.2006 as Ext.P18. Apart from contending that the issue of eligibility has been decided by the Director of Industries and therefore the jurisdiction available with the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax is only to issue a certificate of exemption quantifying the exemption as such, the following facts were pleaded by the petitioner both in Exts.P14 and P18 reply: i)Filed IEM with SIA vide SIA ACFK/2655/SIA/IMO/1999 dated 28.12.1999. ii) Acquired 50 acres of land in Kanjikode, Palakkad District from Western India KINFRA on 28.12.1999, by executing a lease agreement dated 28.12.1999 and paying the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,77,64,000/- to Western India KINFRA vide DD dated 24.12.1999. iii) Obtained the necessary consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 20.12.1999. WPC.3115 /2007 17 iv) Placed orders for the supply of plant and machinery and effected payments through cheques drawn on the said suppliers which were duly credited to the accounts of the suppliers before 1.1.2000 as confirmed by the Deutsche Bank by their letter dated 29.9.2000. v) Commenced commercial production by March, 2001. “ 16. By a notice dated 20.9.2006 the third respondent Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioner that on further scrutiny it is also revealed that activities carried out by the petitioner's unit will not tantamount to “manufacturing” for the purpose of granting Sales Tax exemption as per SRO.No.1729/93. It was therefore proposed to reject the petitioner's application on the said premise also. Ext.P22 is the objection filed by the petitioner to Ext.P21. In Ext.P22 the petitioner reiterated the earlier contentions as contained in Exts.P14 and P18. It contended that what is involved is manufacture and the activity is not one of the excluded categories enumerated in the explanation to SRO.No.1729/93. WPC.3115 /2007 18 The product which is manufactured is commercially different from the raw materials. What is involved is not merely packing of goods, polishing, cleaning, grading etc. and consequently the petitioner 's application for exemption cannot be rejected. It seems that there was a personal hearing on 23.11.2006. Written submissions were also submitted by the assessee and by Ext.P24 order dated 5.1.2007 the Deputy Commissioner had rejected the petitioner's application for sales tax exemption. Ext.P24 has been challenged in this writ petition. 17. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is contended that the benefit of exemption granted under SRO.No.1729/93 was sought to be withdrawn with effect from 1.1.2000. Subsequent notifications were brought in for the said purpose. Nevertheless, the exemption granted under SRO.No.1729/93 was to be made available to units which had either commenced commercial production prior to 1.1.2000 or set up prior to 1.1.2000. It was also to be made available to self financing units provided such units had acquired or placed firm orders for the purchase of necessary plant and machinery before 1.1.2000. Reiterating the observations contained in the findings in Ext.P24