2000 (5) TMI 1044 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification S.R.O. No. 499/90 regarding tax exemption for new and existing industrial units under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Whether goods vehicles purchased for industrial purposes can be considered as part of plant and machinery for exemption.
3. Clarification on the calculation of the value of plant and machinery as per Government Circular dated October 25, 1990.
4. Validity of the Government Circular overriding the clarification issued by the Board of Revenue.
5. Reconsideration of denial of exemption and keeping demands in abeyance pending new orders.
6. Release of seized car based on the circular and conditions imposed.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved the interpretation of Notification S.R.O. No. 499/90, providing tax exemption to new and existing industrial units under certain conditions. The exemption was limited to three years from the completion date certified by the General Manager, District Industries Centres for diversification, expansion, or modernization. The exemption amount was capped at the value of new plant and machinery used for these purposes.
2. The issue arose whether goods vehicles purchased for industrial purposes could be considered part of plant and machinery for exemption. The General Manager initially decided that the value of the vehicle could not be included for exemption based on a Board of Revenue clarification, which stated the exemption was limited to the "full cost of plant and machinery only."
3. A Government Circular dated October 25, 1990 clarified the calculation of plant and machinery value, including costs such as tools, transport charges, and equipment. It specifically allowed for the amount invested in new goods carriers if exclusively used for transportation of raw materials and finished products. The petitioner contended they were entitled to exemption based on this circular.
4. The judgment emphasized that the Government Circular's clarification on plant and machinery value would override any contrary clarification by subordinate officers. The circular's provision for goods carriers further supported the petitioner's claim for exemption under S.R.O. No. 499/90.
5. The court set aside previous decisions denying exemption and directed the General Manager to reconsider based on the Government Circular and any subsequent clarifications. Demands for exemption were to be kept in abeyance pending new orders.
6. In a specific case where a car was seized due to denial of exemption, the court ordered its release to the petitioner upon execution of a bond. The General Manager was instructed to pass a fresh order within three months based on the judgment, with conditions imposed on the vehicle's use and retention.

Overall, the judgment clarified the application of tax exemption provisions for industrial units, highlighted the significance of Government Circulars in interpreting notifications, and provided relief to petitioners based on the correct understanding of plant and machinery valuation for exemption purposes.