Declared tax exemption policy for SEZ units prevailed despite no fresh notification under the successor tax law.

A declared tax exemption policy for industrial enterprises in Special Economic Zones remained operative because it was expressly announced and never withdrawn. Although earlier exemption notifications under the repealed sales tax regime ceased with the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the Government's later policy under clause 6 of the 2008 SEZ policy showed a continuing intention to extend the benefit to SEZ units. The absence of a fresh notification under the successor statute did not defeat that policy, especially where departmental correspondence reflected the same position. The Government was required to implement its declared policy, and the SEZ units were entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption from sales tax under clause 6 of the 2008 Special Economic Zone policy despite the absence of a fresh notification under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The policy granting exemption to industrial enterprises in Special Economic Zones was expressly proclaimed and remained unwithdrawn. The earlier exemption notifications under the repealed Kerala General Sales Tax Act ceased to operate on the coming into force of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, but the subsequent policy declaration showed the Government's continuing intention to extend the benefit to SEZ units. The absence of a corresponding notification could not defeat the policy itself when the Government had not resiled from it and the departmental correspondence also reflected the same position. The principle that the Government cannot speak in two voices and must implement its declared policy was applied.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to the benefit of exemption declared in clause 6 of the 2008 policy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Government has expressly and finally declared a tax exemption policy in favour of a class of assessees and has not withdrawn it, the benefit cannot be denied merely for want of a corresponding notification under the successor taxing statute.

---