E. G. BINDU Vs. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging exhibit P8 notification by which Government has recalled an earlier notification issued as SRO No. 731 of 2004 dated July 19, 2004 granting retrospective sales tax exemption on the sales turnover of mineral water and packaged drinking water by small -scale industrial units. The petitioner along with other dealers claimed exemption on the sale of bottled water on the ground that the same is a manufactured product. However, this court found that there is no manufacture involved in sale of bottled potable water and exemption was rejected. The decision of the single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. However, Government on representation filed by the association of dealers granted retrospective exemption vide Notification SRO No. 731 of 2004 dated July 19, 2004. The Government later reconsidered the matter and found that grant of sales tax exemption with retrospective effect is not in public interest. Therefore, the retrospective exemption granted is withdrawn vide the impugned notification produced as exhibit P8 in this writ petition.

(2.) IN view of the inconsistent stand shown by the Government, this court called for separate affidavits from the two secretaries who issued the two notifications, first granting retrospective exemption and the latter recalling the earlier notification. Both the secretaries have filed affidavits stating that notifications are issued based on decision taken by the Cabinet. In the affidavit filed by the present secretary to Government it is stated that Government was given wrong data regarding tax effect and earlier decision was taken based on a misplaced sympathy for the SSI units which probably would not have collected tax. The secretary has confirmed in his affidavit that it is this mistake that is corrected by the impugned notification which is backed by decision of the Cabinet. I have gone through the file produced by the Special Government Pleader where from it is clear that a letter by the opposition leader was an eye opener for the Government and the Finance Minister recommended reconsideration of irregular exemption granted vide SRO No. 731 of 2004. Since the Government has the power to cancel a notification and since it is conceded that the original notification was issued to neutralise judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court, there is nothing illegal in revoking a notification issued by the Government in an indifferent manner which was not to serve any public interest. In the circumstances, challenge against the impugned notification is devoid of any merit and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.