EPOXY COAT INDUSTRIES Vs. DY TAHSILDAR R R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Govt. Pleader also.

(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner which is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic coated kitchen stand. The unit was registered with the third respondent District Industries Centre, Ernakulam as an SSI unit bearing registration No. 09/03/11243/90 dt. 12-9-1990. Government passed an order in exercise of the powers conferred under S.10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 allowing exemption in respect of sales tax payable by new SSI units for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production. Ext. P1 is the application submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam for sales tax exemption. Ext. P2 is the letter from the third respondent to the second respondent informing the latter that the petitioner's unit is a registered SSI unit bearing No. 09/03/11243/90 and that they have submitted an application for sales tax exemption and the same is under process in the office of the third respondent. Ext. P2 further says that sales tax exemption order will be issued to the petitioner's unit subject to eligibility and approval of the same by the District Level Committee. Under Ext. P2 the third respondent has requested the second respondent "not to take any coercive steps against the unit until you hear from me further". Ext. P2 is issued in October, 1994.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that pending decision on his exemption application by the third respondent, the first respondent has now issued Exts. P3, P3(a) and P 3(b) series of demand notices asking the petitioner to pay the amounts mentioned therein, failing which it is threatened that coercive action will be taken against him to recover the amount. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the exemption applications are pending before the third respondent and since no orders have been passed by the third respondent on the eligibility of the petitioner for exemption and further the third respondent himself has requested the second respondent to not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner "until you hear from me further", the revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Exts. P3, P3(a) and P3(b) cannot be legally sustained.