SULEKHA Vs. STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is carrying on a small-scale industrial unit under the name and style M/s. Kakkattu Hollow bricks at Thoudupuzha. THE industrial unit is engaged in the manufacture of hollow bricks, doors and windows with concrete. THE appellant claimed exemption from payment of sales tax in terms of the notification SRO 1729/1993 as modified by SRO 1092/1999. SRO 1092/1999 was further amended by Notification SRO 295/2000. In terms of the aforesaid notifications a new industrial unit under the small-scale industry is given exemption for a period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial production provided that the units satisfy the conditions enumerated therein. THE relevant clause which governs the case of the appellant is reproduced herein for facility of reference: " (b) owned or acquired or has been allotted land for establishing the industrial units and applied for financial support from any regular financial institution/government before 1. 1. 2000 or (c) in the case of self financed units acquired or placed firm orders for the purchase of the necessary plant and machinery before 1. 1. 2000 provided that the unit commences commercial production that the 31st December, 2001. " A reading of the aforesaid clause makes it clear that the industrial unit must own or acquire land for establishing the industrial unit and it must also apply for financial support from any regular financial institution before the cut off date i. e. 1. 1. 2000. It is not in dispute that the appellant is an industrial unit and it acquired land on 28. 10. 2000. It also made an application to a nationalized bank for obtaining loan on 10. 2. 2000. THE question is " are the conditions enumerated inthe aforesaid clause satisfied? THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the lease deed dated 28. 10. 2000 there is arecital that the land had been obtained by the proprietrix of the unit on 1st December, 1999 and therefore the appellant had acquired land prior to the cut off date. This plea of the appellant cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the lease deed was executed on 28. 10. 2000 and it was executed between the husband and the wife. THE owner of the land is the husband of the prorprietri x and, therefore, a recital in regard to the oral delivery of possession cannot be accepted. THE learned single Judge was right in holding that the appellant did not acquire land prior to the cut off date. Even the application made to the financial institution for financial support was made on 10. 2. 2000, which was beyond the cut off date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant does not satisfy the conditions of the aforesaid clause. It, thus, follows that the appellant is not entitled to claim the exemption. IN this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. . .