LAWS(KER)-2002-1-25

S ANILKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 28, 2002
S.ANILKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order that is challenged in this Original Petition is Ext. P5 dated 9.1.2002 issued by the Government suspending the petitioner from service. Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P5. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:

(2.) The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, as per Ext. P2 order dated 27.9.2001 has issued a clarification under S.59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The said order contained the following clarification:

(3.) This was issued on a clarification sought by a hatchery owner of Tamil Nadu who brought chicks from Tamil Nadu, reared them in the farms in Kerala taken on lease and sold the grown up chickens in Kerala. As per Notification SRO No. 1727/93 and SRO No. 1090/99, the hatcheries and poultry farms of Kerala were enjoying exemption from the payment of sales tax on the sale of chicks and chickens. The said exemption was given to grant protection to the farmers of Kerala as against the aggressive marketing of chicken brought from neighbouring States. But the clarification issued by the Commissioner as per Ext. P2 has considerably diluted the protection given to Kerala farmers and the hatcheries of neighbouring States started taking advantage of it. A political controversy, it appears, was brewing around the said notification. While so, the Leader of Opposition gave notice for making a submission under R.304 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The submission was relating to the crisis faced by the farmers of Kerala as a result of the tax exemption given by the Government to big hatcheries from other States. It appears, only by 8 p. m. on 6.12.2001 the Secretary, Taxes was informed of the same and the petitioner was directed by about 10 P.M. on the same day to prepare a Note for the use of the Minister for replying in the Assembly. Petitioner was informed of this telephonically. The direction was to submit a Note by 9 A.M. on 7.12.2001 to the Finance Minister. It appears, the petitioner went to the Assembly premises in the next morning and gave a Note to enable the Minister to reply to the discussion in the Legislative Assembly. The said Note is Ext. R1(b). In the said Note, the petitioner has stated that the chicken reared in the farms in the State are eligible for exemption even if the owners of the farms are persons belonging to Tamil Nadu. He also clarified that if a person from Tamil Nadu runs a farm in Kerala taking it on lease, he will be considered the owner of the farm and the chicken from the said farm will be eligible for exemption from tax. He concluded the Note stating that after this Government came to power no new concession was granted in this sector.