TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 order passed by the Government on April 7, 2008, turning down the request to consider the extension of exemption from the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the concessional rate of Central sales tax till March 31, 2006, without any ceiling and also being aggrieved of exhibits P11 to P16 notices in respect of the assessment proposed under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, 1957 in respect of the assessment years 2000-01 till 2005-06. 2. The petitioner-industry was set up as a joint concern promoted by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation and it started commercial production on September 1, 1993. As stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner was eligible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31,2006 without any ceiling. (b) Concessional power tariff and exemption from payment of electricity duty vide Government Notification No. MS/4/92/PD dated February 6,1992 till March 31, 2006." 4. Later, exhibit P7 order was issued on June 20, 2005, whereby the clause stipulating to have the benefit provided till March 31, 2006 was modified, confining the same to "March 31, 2005". It is also borne out by the records that the petitioner-company, by virtue of the rehabilitation steps and such other measures, came out from the purview of the BIFR and exhibit P8 order was passed; the operative portion of which reads as follows: "As the company M/s. SRL ceases to be a sick industrial company, within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of prohibition against respondents 1, 3 and 4 from enforcing any demand of 'sales tax' against the petitioner without prior approval from the BIFR." The said writ petition was disposed of as per exhibit P5 judgment dated June 5, 2006, without passing any order on merit, but relegating the petitioner to approach the Government, if the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner. 6. It is stated by the petitioner that, even though the petitioner approached the Government, no positive orders were passed. Later, the petitioner was served with exhibit P9 order dated April 7, 2008, stating that the request to consider the extension could not be agreed upon and hence was rejected, however adding that the Government had reduced the rate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On June 20, 2005, the BIFR has issued the following direction for the compliance of the concerned authorities. With regard to the sales tax matter, the following is the direction: 'Sales tax authorities, the Government of Kerala, in order to ensure long term viability of the company would consider granting reliefs as envisaged in para 13.9(a)-page 30 of the sanctioned scheme for the period from October 1, 2000 to March 31, 2005 (instead of up to March 31, 2006) and would also not raise any further demand/claim on the company for the said period. The company would however, to continue to pay the new value added tax from April 1, 2005 onwards'." The para 13.9(a) preferred in the abovesaid order with regard to the sales tax matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xhibit P5 scheme/order issued by the BIFR. As mentioned hereinbefore, the concerned scheme passed by the BIFR only directs the Government to have the matter considered and there is no positive order to provide any exemption as a matter of right. That apart, the said direction itself is with specific reference to the benefit extendable under SRO Nos. 520 and 521 and nothing more than that. This in fact has been considered and rejected by the Government as early as on April 7, 2008 by passing exhibit P9 order. It also remains a fact that the petitioner had approached this court earlier by filing O.P. No. 10157/2001, which culminated in exhibit P5 judgment passed on June 5, 2006, whereby the petitioner was relegated to approach the Government.....