9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay sales tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act' for short) and for consequential directions. 2. The petitioners' unit which is engaged in manufacture and sale of electrical control systems, is situated in Cochin Special Economic Zone, Kakkanad. The Government of Kerala approved a Special Economic Zone policy on 17.06.2003, as per Ext.P2 order based on which Ext.P3 notification was issued on 13.02.2004 under section 10 of the KGST Act, exempting the industrial undertakings and other establishments, trading units and developers in the Special Economic Zones within Kerala, from payment of tax payable under the KGST Act,1963 with effect from 01.07.2003. While the petitioners' unit was thus enjoying the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings of assessment of petitioners' unit as well as the appeals/revisions on it are kept in abeyance on the basis of the interim order passed in this writ petition. 7. Relying on the judgments of the apex court in State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. and another : AIR 2004 SC 4559 and Llyod Electric and Engineering Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others : (2016) 1 SCC 560, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that respondents cannot go back from the promise held out to them by proclaiming the policy and that they are bound to grant them exemption accordingly. 8. The petitioners have produced Ext.P12 letter dated 13.06.2014, between the Secretaries of the Department of Industries and Department of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying on the judgment of the apex court in Amin Merchant vs. Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Revenue and Ors:(2016) 9 SCC 191 and the judgment in (2014) 1 SCC 613, it was argued that by the mere declaration of policy, petitioners cannot be granted any exemption unless and until it is translated to orders or notifications by Government. 11. In Nestle India's case (supra) the apex court was considering a case where the then Chief Minister of Punjab made an announcement that purchase tax on milk and milk products was abolished in the State. The Finance Minister had also made a speech in tune with that. But the benefit was denied for want of a legislation. The apex court held that the Government cannot deny them the benefit on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise and Revenue and Ors.(2016) 9 SCC 191, relied on by the learned Government Pleader, the apex court was considering a case where the petitioner wanted implementation of reduced rates of customs duty for the goods imported by him, in tune with the budget proposal. Apex court found that there was no material to show that it was accepted by the parliament; on the other hand a particular tariff was provided in it for such goods, in the Finance Act passed thereafter. Referring to the statutory provisions under which power to grant any exemption are to be exercised and the manner in which notifications granting exemption are to be issued, the apex court held that budget proposals are not the enactments by Parliament and after the Finance Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Government Departments are bound to implement Government policy. It is seen that Special Economic Zone itself was set up under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, which is enacted for the establishment, development and management of the SEZ for promotion of exports and for matters incidental to it. Government had been granting certain concessions and exemptions in order to promote the entrepreneurs and they had been enjoying exemption from tax under the repealed Act. The respondents are fully aware of the policy declared in Ext.P9 and there cannot be any dispute over it, as evident from the correspondence between the Departments of Industries and that of Commercial Taxes in Exts.P12 and P13 letters produced along with I.A.No.6615 of 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of 3 judges, whereas in Amin Merchant's case it was by a bench of 2 judges. 17. Even though the learned Government Pleader argued that the remedy of the petitioners is not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the orders of assessment are already issued the said contention cannot be accepted as none of the statutory authorities can consider the claim of the petitioners against the Government to implement the policy. In the above circumstances, it is declared that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of exemption declared in Ext.P9 policy, as provided in Clause 6 thereof. It is made clear that I have not considered any of the other aspects relating to the merits or otherwise of the individual assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
