GOPAL SOAP INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Gopal Soap Industries is seeking for various prayers. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax. It carries on the business of manufacturing handmade soaps. The petitioner established its village industry in the year 1992. The product manufactured and sold by the petitioner fell under entry 28 of the Fifth schedule to the KST Act. The petitioner satisfied the prescribed condition under rule 25-A of the Rules. The petitioner was exempt from payment of tax. The petitioner is recognized by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as a village industry and granted recognition certificate in terms of the Rules. Rule 25-A of the KST Rules (now Rule 24) lays down conditions and limitations that are to be satisfied for prescribed village industries to be eligible for exemption from levy of tax under the KST Act. Rule 25-B (3), as it then stood, made provisions for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for grant of certificate of recognition. The petitioner is having a Certificate. Sub Rule (3) to Rule 25-A (now Rule 24 (3) was introduced by Notification No. FD 39 CSL 96 dated 8. 5. 1996. In terms of the Sub Rules only for the village industries established on or after 1. 4. 1996, the prescribed condition of maximum annual sales turnover for prescribed village industries which was not to exceed to be eligible for sales tax exemption was increased from Rs. 10 lakhs t Rs. 20 lakhs. According to the petitioner, this has resulted in discrimination.

(2.) THE petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 12 A in terms of Annexures A and A1. In the light of these two notices, the petitioner is before me.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He reiterates the facts and grounds raised in the petition. According to the petitioner a discriminatory treatment is meeted out by the state Government in the matter of concession in respect of pre 1. 4. 1996 and post 1. 4. 1996 industries. This according to him is in violation of Article 14. He relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 658.