It is stated that in stead and place of Secretary, Board of Revenue Taxes , Thiruvananthapuram, the said jurisdiction of the Board was being exercised by Deputy Commissioner General Commercial Taxes.
The land can be made available as per the time frame you have indicated in your letter.
36693/B2/01/ID dated 21.12.2001 of the Principal Secretary to Government Industries were also presented before the State Level Committee for its companysideration.
Appellant is said to have written a letter to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Kerala on or about 11.5.1999 seeking companyfirmation of the benefits, such as incentive of sales tax exemption on the goods produced etc.,
You may kindly discuss with the Managing Director, KSIDC.
However, after expiry of the said assessment year, the Government took a decision number to abolish purchase tax on milk and the taxing authority therefore raised a demand for Assessment Year 1996 1997.
The said policy decision was issued by way of a Notification bearing SRO No.1729/1993 issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as, the said Act providing for exemption to New Industrial Units set up in the State of Kerala, the relevant clauses whereof read as under In the case of new Industrial Units under Medium and Large Scale Industries, there shall be an exemption for a period of seven years from the date of companymencement of companymercial production a in respect of the tax payable by such units under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 On the turnover of sale of goods manufactured and sold by them within the state and On the turnover of goods, taxable at the point of last purchase in the State, which are used by such units for manufacturing other goods for sale within the State or inter state and b in respect of the Surcharge payable under Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 Act 11 of 1957 in relation to the goods referred to in sub clause a above.
A unit shall be deemed to have placed firm orders for the purchase of plant, machinery and equipments if such unit had made any advance payments therefore by means of demand draft of Cheque which has been credited to the account of the seller prior to 1st January 2000.
A meeting took place by and between the representatives of the appellant and the authorities companycerned.
A Special Leave Petition being SLP No.
Appellant is a private limited companypany.
The respondents have passed on the benefit of that exemption by providing various facilities and companycessions for the upliftment of the milk producers.
On the one hand, in relation to the grant of exemption, the power of the Board of Revenue is being exercised by the Deputy Commissioner General Commercial Taxes, the Director of Industries and Commerce was the appellate authority on the other, the latters decision was made subject to the ultimate grant of exemption by the former.
This position was reported to the State Level Committee held on 15.3.2003 for clarification.
During pendency of the said writ petition, the Director of Industries Commerce by its order dated 8.6.2003 rejected the prayer for grant of eligibility certificate made by the appellant, stating In turn vide letter No.
It is made clear that Ext.
In the meanwhile, steps have already been taken for assessment and companypleted as per Ext.
P2 judgment obviously cannot be companystrued as companyferring authority on the second respondent to decide the question of eligibility entitlement of the petitioner for sales tax exemption.
It was found that the overall benefit to the States economy and the public would be greater if the exemption were allowed.
It was shown that a fixed capital investment of Rs.
A writ petition marked as O.P. No.
Petitioner will immediately produce a companyy of this order along with a companyy of this judgment before the second respondent.
The Sales Tax Officer, Palakkad, however, issued Provisional Assessment Notice for the period April 2002 to December 2002 on or about 7.2.2003.
All the earlier cases on the subject were reviewed by the Court and ultimately it was companycluded as follows SCC pp.
During May 2000, amendments were made by the unit in the earlier placed purchase orders to accommodate in the purchase supply orders additional machineries as well as items varying in specifications with different capacities than the particular ones for which orders were placed prior to 1.1.2000.
P22 dated 29.9.2006 and thereafter Ext.
An intra companyrt appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
1,56,02,600/ iii Plant Machinery Rs.
Even the special leave petition was filed by the Industries Department and number by the Commercial Taxes Department.
29815/B2/02/ID dt.
105.00 lakhs to Rs.
1092/99 and 295/2000 regarding STE.
3105.13 lakh were number paid of any advance to machinery suppliers prior to 1.1.2000 and they all were acquired on different dates after 1.1.2000.
The said numberification provided for issuance of eligibility certificate in respect of medium and large scale industries assisted by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation KSIDC for short or the Kerala Financial Corporation inter alia by the Director of Industries and Commerce on application made by such units, and orders of exemption issued by the Secretary, Board of Revenue Taxes , Thiruvananthapuram.
The eligibility certificate was granted in the prescribed form.
17308 of 2004 filed thereagainst has also been dismissed.
Another writ petition being W.P. C No.
The Director had granted a certificate in terms of the order of the High Court.
P. 7 order will be subject to the orders passed by the second respondent on Ext.
available to the proposed new unit, stating Proposal for Investments in Kerala State PepsiCo in India PepsiCo Inc. has set up a fully integrated operation in India manufacturing, research and development marketing, distribution, exports and franchise companyering fruit vegetable processing, snack foods and beverages.
But, it is of some significance to numbere that the Director of Industries and Commerce is the appellate authority of the Deputy Commissioner General Commercial Taxes, as would appear from a numberification dated 3.11.1993.
Therefore, the original petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take up for companysideration Ext.
P24 that the petitioner had number acquired or placed firm orders for the purchase of necessary plant and machinery seems to be based on the materials on record and is otherwise tenable.
P14 on 30.6.2005, Ext.
Also the views in the matter companytained in letter No.
1092/99 as modified by SRO No.
20675/2001 stands rejected.
Both the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench did number companysider this aspect of the matter.
Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the matter was placed before the Special Secretary Taxes who by reason of a letter dated 15.11.2001 addressed to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarified that the appellant was eligible for grant of sales tax exemption.
The effect of such a dichotomy merits serious companysideration.
30,46,94,552 has been made under the following heads Land Nil ii Building Rs.
8,12,294/ Lab equipments Nil vi Diesel Generator Rs.
The items of plant and machinery for which firm orders were placed prior to the cut off date on 1.1.2000 even according to the petitioner are obviously only a small percentage of the plant and machinery While, however, doing so, we may place on record that the following companytentions had been raised The petitioners eligibility for sales tax exemption was certified by the Director as per Ext.
8563 of 2003 in the Kerala High Court.
20675 of 2001 was filed by it before the Kerala High Court in July 2001 questioning the aforementioned order of assessment dated 17.5.2001.
Till such time orders are passed by the second respondent, interim order passed by this Court will companytinue.
The exemption numberification was issued for the purpose of achieving the economic growth in the State.
23.12.2002 Government have clarified that there is numberneed to issue a general clarification for SRO No.
In the circumstances the finding in Ext.
This has number been denied.
1729/1993.
29/99 dated 6.1.1999 the Government have authorized the State Level Committee, under Section 10 of the KGST Act, as the companypetent authority to issue clarifications, wherever necessary, regarding the scheme of tax exemption.
P6 in OP No.
481 82, para 47 The appellant has been unable to establish any overriding public interest which would make it inequitable to enforce the estoppel against the State Government.
The Court enforced the principle of estoppel.
The Director of Industries Commerce thereafter granted an Eligibility Certificate to the appellant stating that it was also eligible for grant of sales tax exemption.
295/2000.
By reason of an order dated 7.9.2001, the aforementioned writ petition was disposed of, directing Petitioner submits that his Ext.
The letters exchanged by and between the appellant and the authorities of the State, which we have numbericed heretobefore, in numberuncertain terms, show that the appellant was intending to set up a plant in the State of Kerala pursuant to the provisions made by the State.
Such a decision was taken purported to be relying on or on the basis of a policy decision taken by the State of Kerala to grant exemption from payment of sales tax with a view to attract more investment in the State.
It was opined In my view Ext.
99,73,589/ vii Electrification Rs.
Only the Director of Commerce and Industries did.
15.11.2001 of the Special Secretary to Government Taxes to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram and in Lr.
It was held that the State Government cannot resile from its decision to exempt milk and raise a demand for the aforesaid assessment year.
However, the same principle of estoppel was number invoked after Assessment Year 1996 1997.
In any event, the certificate granted by the Director deserved serious companysideration.
Respondents preferred a writ appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the said Court by an order dated 15.6.2004.
Questioning the legality and or validity of the said numberice and the order of assessment, the appellant filed writ petition being O.P. No.
As per SRO No.
ORDER In the above circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the claim of M s Pepsicola India Marketing Company, Kanjikode, Palakkad for getting Eligibility Certificate for STE vide their application dated 30.5.2001 Ext.
3115 of 2007 was filed by the appellant.
The Principal Secretary, Dept.
The Principal Secretary Industries also wrote a letter to the Director of Industries Commerce on or about 21.12.2001 reconfirming that it was eligible for sales tax exemption.
By an order dated 30.11.2007, the said writ petition was dismissed.
of Industry was also present during the discussion.
Suseela Gopalan about your plans for investing in Kerala for setting up a bottling plant and allied facilities.
The taxing authority entertained such returns.
The manufacturers passed on the benefit of exemption to the dairy farmers and milk producers.
Despite the same, however, the Deputy Commissioner General Commercial Taxes denied the grant of benefit of sales tax exemption on the premise that it had failed to take effective steps in terms of the relevant numberifications by an order dated 5.1.2007.
On these facts, the Court held that in absence of proof of any overriding public interest rendering the enforcement of estoppel against the Government was inequitable, numberwithstanding that numberexemption numberification as required by the statute was issued.
Yet again, the said authority by a letter dated 25.7.2002 informed the Director of Industries Commerce stating that the term necessary plant and machinery need number be the entire plant and machinery and further that the appellant companyld be held to have taken effective steps as per the said numberifications.
The State Level Committee examined the above issues and held that in the case of M s Pepsicola India Marketing Company, the purchase orders and the other documents related to payment of advance to machinery suppliers do number show that the Company has fully satisfied the definition of Effective steps as required and as stipulated in SRO No.
26,71,62,774/ iv Pollution Control Devices Rs.
P6 application.
If the direction issued in Ext.
Allotment of land for setting up the new unit Regarding this, as we discussed, we offer to give you the required land in the Districts of either Palakkad, Ernakulam or Kozhikkode, as per your choice.
It intended to set up a medium scale industrial unit at Kanjikode, Palakkad in the State of Kerala for manufacturing soft drinks under the brand name Pepsi.
The representation was made by the highest authorities including the Finance Minister in his Budget speech after companysidering the financial implications of the grant of the exemption to milk.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
P6 application for exemption from payment of sales tax is pending before the second respondent.
Interpretation of an exemption numberification dated 3.11.1992 issued by the State of Kerala dated 3.11.1993 as modified by numberifications dated 31.12.1999 and 31.3.2000 is in question herein.
It stands admitted that the companytention raised by the respondents herein in the first round of litigation that the investment in the plant and machinery must be substantial was for all intent and purport rejected.
By a letter dated 12.5.1999, Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation replied to the appellants aforementioned letter dated 11.5.1999 in the following terms This is with reference to your letter dated 11th May 1999 addressed to Mr. K. Mohandas, Principal Secretary Industries .
The said question arises in the following factual matrix.
P6 application on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today.
23364/B3/2000/TD dt.
The Chairman of KSIDC by its letter dated 4.6.1999 informed the appellant that all promotional support and possible assistance under the State Governments industrial policy would be extended to the proposed new industrial unit, stating As per your telephonic talk with me a few days ago, recently while I was in Thiruvananthapuram I briefly discussed with the Honble Minster of Industry, Kerala Smt.
The Director of Industries Commerce, however, companyld number pass an appropriate order in terms of the direction of the learned single judge and sought for an extension which was allowed by an order dated 1.8.2002.
Indisputably, KSIDC by its letter dated 13.5.1999 companyfirmed that the new industrial unit would be exempted from payment of sales tax for the first seven years subject to a ceiling of 100 of capital investment.
