IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17634 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SMT.M.H.WAHEEDA .PROPRIETRIX, M/S.HINDUSTAN PAINTS,MEETHAL, MANGAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 17634 OF 2008 Y ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The manufacturing unit of the petitioner is one recognized by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. There is an assessment against the petitioner for the assessment year 2001-02. At the time of the assessment order was passed, Khadi and Village Industries were governed by Notification SRO.291/2000. According to the said SRO, the petitioner was entitled to concessional rate of tax only at 4% with effect from 1.4.2000. It is her further case that the Government has exempted all Khadi and Village Industries units in the State, whose total turnover for a year did not exceed Rs.50 lakhs from levy of tax. This is done by SRO.1048/2005. Again, by Notification SRO.544/2007 dated 18.6.2007, the benefit was extended to the period from 1.4.2000 onwards. Then the petitioner’s turnover became eligible for total exemption. The petitioner filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on the WPC.17634/08 : 2 : ground that no valid reasons are given for condonation of delay. Then, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking invocation of the power under section 43 of the KGST Act. In the mean time, revenue recovery steps were taken. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P6. It is an order passed in appeal where the petitioner was granted benefit of the above two notifications in respect of the assessment year 2000-01. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. I feel that a decision can be ordered to be taken on Ext.P4 in accordance with law without expressing any opinion on the maintainability or merits of Ext.P4. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the maintainability or merits of the application of the petitioner. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE