IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29115 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- J & J MINERALS PVT. LTD.ANCHERY COMPLEX, PALLIKKULAM ROAD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.JOSE K.FRANCIS. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD., 2. FAST TRACK TEAM-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 3. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD. 4. STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON SALES TAX EXEMPTION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.29115 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is small scale industrial unit manufacturing bottled water, sold in the pet bottles, which is also manufactured on their own factory. Initially petitioner was granted Ext.P1 exemption under notification SRO 1729/93, exempting them from payment of tax for a period of seven years. The said exemption was cancelled in view of the decision of this Court in Teejan Beverages Ltd. V. State of Kerala (2003) 11 KTR 443 (Ker.). Ext.P3 is the assessment completed against the petitioner disallowing exemption claimed, based on the above ruling. Appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 is pending consideration before the third respondent Tribunal. The entire amount of tax has been paid in compliance with the requirement for filing appeal, as provided under Section 17D(e) of the KGST Act. 2. It is pointed out that even in the case cited supra, this Court clarified that the unit which are manufacturing empty bottles W.P(C) No.29115 of 2010-L 2 for filling water are eligible to claim benefit of SRO 1729/93. Hence, contention of the petitioner is that, inspite of dictum laid down by this Court in Teejan Beverages case, the petitioners' unit is eligible for exemption. 3. According to the petitioner the claim regarding exemption is now pending consideration before the State Level Committee constituted for that purpose, based on a clarification sought for by the General Manager of District Industries Centre, Palakkad, the first respondent herein. From Ext.P6, it is evident that the Director of Industries and Commerce had intimated the third respondent Tribunal that the matter is pending consideration before the State Level Committee. Through Ext.P7 letter, the petitioner was also informed that the matter will be taken up for consideration in the next meeting of the State Level Committee. Under such circumstances, the petitioner points out that an early decision regarding the issue of exemption is highly necessary, since appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the third respondent Tribunal. Therefore petitioner is seeking directions in this regard. 4. Heard, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. W.P(C) No.29115 of 2010-L 3 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing directions to the fourth respondent to dispose of the matter at the earliest. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the matter at the earliest, if possible in its next meeting itself, and to issue the clarifications sought for by the District Industries Centre. However, a decision in this regard shall be taken by the fourth respondent, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. The third respondent is also directed to keep Ext.P4 appeal pending till such time the fourth respondent takes a decision as directed, if the appeal is otherwise sustainable. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab