Exemption notification interpretation: brand name use could not defeat sales tax relief where the assessee satisfied the express conditions.

An industrial unit manufacturing cement using fly ash remained entitled to sales tax exemption under the Kerala notification because it had obtained the required eligibility certificate and exemption order, and the notification did not disqualify units merely for selling under another company's brand name. The HC held that the revisional authority could not import a restriction from a different excise exemption scheme and invoke revision on that basis. It reiterated that a beneficial exemption notification is strictly construed at the stage of eligibility, but liberally applied once the assessee falls within its express terms. The revisional and appellate orders were set aside and the assessment orders granting exemption were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, an industrial unit manufacturing cement using fly ash, remained entitled to sales tax exemption under the relevant notification despite using another company's brand name, and whether the revisional authority could set aside the assessment on that basis.

Analysis: The exemption notification was framed under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to encourage industrial units manufacturing cement using fly ash generated in the State as raw material. The notification, read with the conditions in S.R.O. No. 1729/93, required the assessee to obtain an eligibility certificate and an order of exemption, both of which had been granted. The assessment orders were passed on that basis. The Court held that the decision relied on by the revisional authority concerning brand name use under a different excise exemption notification had no application, because the Kerala notification did not impose a restriction denying exemption merely because the product was sold under another brand name. The Court also reiterated that an exemption notification is to be strictly construed at the stage of applicability and liberally construed once the assessee falls within its plain terms.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption, and the revisional authority was not justified in invoking section 35 to disturb the assessments on the ground of brand name use.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the revisional and appellate orders were set aside, and the assessment orders granting exemption were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee satisfies the express conditions of a beneficial exemption notification, the exemption cannot be denied by importing an additional disqualifying condition not found in the notification itself.

---