IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2169 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19438/2007 Dated 28/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P(C): --------------------------------------- MATHEW.K, PROPRIETOR, M/S.DECAN CABLES INDUSTRIES, THRIPPILAZHIKOM.P.O,KUNDARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C): ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRIC INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BYGOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MOHAMMED RAFFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 2169 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for the respondent. The question involved is whether appellant is entitled to sales tax exemption on the value of the machinery purchased and investment subsidy on the value of the same machinery. The claim for exemption was rejected for the reason that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove interstate transportation and when the supplier was contacted, the letter was returned with endorsement that no such company exists. However, appellant's specific case is that he got the goods in single truck and the total value is around Rs.4 lakhs. The main machinery is the PVC extruder which is used for manufacturing insulated copper cable in the industry. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition for want of proof to convince the purchase of new machinery by the appellant. Even though we do not find anything wrong in the judgment, we feel one more opportunity can be given to the appellant to substantiate WA No.2169/08 -:2:- the case before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kollam(2nd respondent) for the following reasons. 2. In the first place, petitioners have produced Annexure A1 letter sent by the Manager in 1990. He has further contended that petitioner can produce transport documents, since the goods admittedly originated from Bangalore and since the goods are transported through road it would not have come without being supported by transport documents such as sales bill, central excise gate pass etc. In fact, these documents would have been cleared by border check posts before it reaches the consignee namely, the appellant. Besides this, we are of the view that, supplier cannot be a fly by-night company as it was engaged in manufacture of high value machinery. Above all, the machinery would be covered by warranty and there will be details about the installation certified by an electrical inspector and all such allied documents to prove installation of the new machinery. In fact, installation itself would be done by supplier's engineers within the warranty period and clear agreements pertaining to warranty coverage also will be there. Besides this, there should be bank documents pertaining to payment. If appellant produces WA No.2169/08 -:3:- convincing documents of the kind referred above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, there will be a direction to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kollam to reconsider the matter and if found genuine, grant eligible relief through a speaking order with the prior approval of the Director of Industries and Commerce. Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. ttb WA No.2169/08 -:4:-