IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 241 of 2010() ------------------------- TA.166/2009 of DY.CMOR,KERALA AGR.IT & STAT,PKD. .................... REVISIONAL PETITIONER/APPELLANT. ---------------------------------------------------- K.T.BABY, MUTTATH STARCH PRODUCTS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA . BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, ALONG WITH STRV NO.243 & 244 OF 2010, THE COURT ON 12/01/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. Nos.241, 243 & 244 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioner was granted sales tax exemption for seven years treating the activity i.e. powdering of tamarind seed, as a manufacturing activity. After availing exemption for several years, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, recalled the exemption order towards the fag end of the period for which exemption was allowed. Since certificate of exemption was withdrawn, assessments were made for the three years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. Appeals at two levels were unsuccessful and hence these S.T. Revisions are filed before us. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. During hearing counsel for the petitioner submitted that assessee was under a bonafide mistake that correction of the cancellation order could be challenged before the appellate authorities under the KGST Act and in turn before this court in revision S.T.Rev.241/10 & conn. 2 proceedings and, therefore, no Writ Petition was filed independently challenging the order cancelling exemption granted earlier. He has also relied on decision of this court in R.SURESHKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2005) 140 STC 228 wherein this court held that conversion of tamarind seed into powder amounts to manufacture or production of an article entitling the industrial unit to claim sales tax exemption. Counsel contended that since tax is still due, petitioner continues to have grievance and can still file Writ Petition. We do not want to decide this issue as of now because independent of the challenge against Tribunal's orders, petitioner is free to challenge the order of the General Manager withdrawing exemption. So far as the sales tax authorities are concerned, when the source of exemption disappears, they are free to levy and demand tax. The appellate authorities were only considering the correctness of the assessments and not correctness of the order of the General Manager withdrawing S.T.Rev.241/10 & conn. 3 exemption. So much so, we do not find any merit in the S.T. Revision cases and the same are dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek all other remedies available to him. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms