9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on - the action of the Assessing authority, as also the Appellate authorities, under the KGST Act, denying the benefit of exemption to the petitioner, was legal and valid, and the said orders do not require any intervention by this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate authority under the Notification, having committed a jurisdictional error in granting a certificate of eligibility, in a case which did not involve a process of manufacture, the said certificate could not have been relied upon to grant an exemption to the petitioner in the instant case. Petition dismissed. - W.P. (C.) No. 30271 of 2011 (H) - - - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Shri N. Muralee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, to an extent of ₹ 18,18,581/-. The exemption was granted for the period from 28-3-2000 to 27-3-2007, by Ext. P2 order dated 3-10-2001. Thereafter, the assessments of the petitioner under the KGST Act/CST Act came up for consideration before the Assessing authority, and, by Exts. P3 and P4 orders passed under the KGST Act and CST Act respectively, the Assessing Officer denied the petitioner the benefit of exemption that was granted in Ext. P2 order, by observing that this Court had, through the decision in M/s. Swapna Bone Meal Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another - [(2004) 12 KTR 183 (Ker)], held that conversion of bones into crushed bones and bone meal would not amount to a process of manufacture for the purposes of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. The findings in the assessing orders, as also the appellate orders, are sought to be justified for the reasons contained therein. 3. I have heard Sri. N. Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Smt. M.M. Jasmine, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others - [2005 (142) STC 761 as also Pondicherry State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. v. Union Territory of Pondicherry - [(2007) 10 VST 630 [SC]] to contend that, once the appropriate authority under the Notification, had found the petitioner eligible for the exemption, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purposes of grant of exemption under the Notification SRO. No. 1729/1993. This was, therefore, a case where the Assessing authority, when completing the assessment against the petitioner for the relevant assessment year, had to reconcile between an order granting exemption, issued by the appropriate authority under the Notification, and the decision of this Court that declared the process carried on by the petitioner as one not amounting to manufacture. In my view, when the decision of this Court declared the law with regard to the activity not amounting to a process of manufacture, then, it followed, as a consequence, that the certificate of eligibility granted by the appropriate authority under the Notification, was one that was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that considered the eligibility of the assessee for the benefit of the Notification, found in favour of the asessee, and issued the eligibility certificate holding the assessee entitled for the benefit of exemption. The Assessing authorities under the respective Sales Tax Legislations also initially granted the exemption, based on the eligibility certificate issued to the assessee. Thereafter, at the instance of the Sales Tax Department, the said assessments were sought to be reopened, on the contention that the processes carried on by the assessee did not amount to a process of manufacture, for the purposes of granting the exemption. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that it was not open to the Department to go behind the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te issued by the appropriate authority holding the assessee eligible for the benefit of exemption, while denying the benefit of exemption to the assessee in the assessment orders passed under the KGST Act/CST Act. The appropriate authority under the Notification, having committed a jurisdictional error in granting a certificate of eligibility, in a case which did not involve a process of manufacture, the said certificate could not have been relied upon to grant an exemption to the petitioner in the instant case. While holding so, I draw support from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Southern Refineries Limited v. State of Kerala - [(2013) 62 VST 353 (Ker)], where, on a different aspect in connection with the same Notification, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
