UNIQUE THREAD MILLS Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of sewing thread, out of cotton yarn purchased by it. It has been registered as a small scale industrial unit by proceedings Ext. P1 dated 3-1-1992 of the second respondent, the General Manager of the District industries Centre, Palakkad. It is stated that the unit was actually set up on 30-11-1990. It is claimed to be an industrial unit set up by women, the entrepreneurs as well as the workers, permanent as well as casual, being only women. It has been recognised as such, and given the benefit of certain subsidy schemes and others, by proceedings Exts. P2 and P3, of the second respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER made an application to the second respondent for the issue of eligibility certificate, to get exemption from payment of sales tax as per the Notification, SRO. No. 969/80 dated 29-9-1980 issued by the Government under S. K) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Under this notification, Women's Industrial Units, Mini 1 ml us tries and Small scale Units of Harijans, set upon or after 1-4-1979 are entitled to exemption from payment of lax on the turnover of sale of the goods produced by them, for a period of six years from the date of commencement of the sale of the goods, subject to. the conditions mentioned therein. One of these conditions is that the unit should produce the proceedings of the General Manager, District industries Centre, declaring its eligibility for exemption from payment of sales tax. PETITIONER claimed the benefit of this Notification as a women's industrial unit and applied to the second respondent for issue of the eligibility certificate. But it was informed by the proceedings Ext. P5 dated 19-4-1993 that the "district Level Committee for granting sales lax exemption" had rejected its case, at the meeting held on 6-3-1993. PETITIONER has challenged the proceedings Ext. P5 in this writ petition, mainly on two grounds. Firstly. it is stated that its application should have been dealt with by the second respondent - General Manager of the District industries Centre - and not by the District Level Committee of which the second respondent is only a member. Secondly it is stated that Ext. P5 was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and that it does not disclose the reason why the petitioner's application was rejected. The power has therefore been exercised arbitrarily. I find force in both the contentions. So far as the second aspect is concerned, admittedly no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to be heard. Ext. P5 does not also inform the petitioner the reason why its unit is held not entitled to the exemption. The reason has not been explained even by a counter affidavit in this Court. This is not proper.

(3.) THE second respondent is there fore bound to consider the petitioner's claim only in the light of SRO. No. 969/80 uninfluenced by anything stated in SRO. No. 499/90.