TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's application for exemption under S.R.O. No. 969/80 had to be considered only by the authority specified in that notification and not by the District Level Committee. (ii) Whether the rejection of the claim without hearing the petitioner and without stating reasons was sustainable, and whether S.R.O. No. 969/80 continued to operate notwithstanding S.R.O. No. 499/90.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's application for exemption under S.R.O. No. 969/80 had to be considered only by the authority specified in that notification and not by the District Level Committee.
Analysis: The exemption was claimed under a specific statutory notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. That notification required production of an eligibility certificate from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, as a condition for availing the exemption. When a notification prescribes the authority who must issue the certificate and the conditions on which the benefit is to be considered, the application must be dealt with only by that authority on the terms of that notification. A committee constituted for a different notification could not substitute itself for the designated authority under S.R.O. No. 969/80.
Conclusion: The petitioner's claim could not validly be dealt with by the District Level Committee, and the decision taken by that body was illegal.
Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the claim without hearing the petitioner and without stating reasons was sustainable, and whether S.R.O. No. 969/80 continued to operate notwithstanding S.R.O. No. 499/90.
Analysis: No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, and the rejection order did not disclose any reason. The absence of reasons and the denial of hearing rendered the decision arbitrary and contrary to fair procedure. On the question of competing notifications, S.R.O. No. 499/90 did not supersede S.R.O. No. 969/80, which continued to govern the more liberal exemption available to women's industrial units and similar categories. The later notification could not be read as withdrawing the earlier benefit, especially when the earlier notification remained in force and was subsequently referred to in later exemption arrangements.
Conclusion: The rejection was unsustainable, and S.R.O. No. 969/80 remained operative and applicable to the petitioner's claim.
Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration by the competent authority after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax exemption notification specifies the authority competent to issue the eligibility certificate and the governing conditions, the application must be decided strictly by that authority under that notification, and an order passed by an extraneous body without hearing and reasons is illegal.
TaxTMI 
