TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons are as follows: Petitioners are running small-scale industrial units manufacturing tread rubber. The State Government (Industries Department) had issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated August 31, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the first notification ) granting certain concessions to promote rubber industries which are as follows: (1) Rubber to be used for new industries in Kerala will be exempted from levy of purchase tax; (2) An additional capital subsidy of 5 per cent will be given to new rubber industries to be set up in Kerala, (3) Sales tax on finished rubber goods produced from factories in Kerala will be reduced to 3 per cent. 4. Subsequently Government (Taxes Department) issued a Notification G.O. (P) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded by the subsequent Notification in S.R.O. No. 554/90. It is further submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID was upheld by this Court holding that it is deemed to have been issued under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Therefore the subsequent Notification S.R.O. No. 554/90 which is conflict with the earlier notification unless superseded cannot be held to be valid. The explanatory note to S.R.O. No. 554/90 makes it clear that it was to give effect to G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated August 31, 1988. Hence the Notification S.R.O. No. 554/90 is redundant and unnecessary. All the tread rubber manufacturers were assessed by applying the first notification and they were taxed only at 3 per cent. All of them proceeded on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the first notification continues in force or is it superseded by the second notification. The preamble portion of the order, G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated August 31, 1988 states that Government wanted to encourage and induce more rubber based industries in Kerala. In that view they, after considering the suggestions of manufacturers and experts decided to extend the concessions. It is very clear from the order that the concessions were meant for the new industries set up in Kerala. It is obvious that a concession has relevance to the particular object, i.e., encouragement or promotion of new industries. Any such concession given to a particular industry cannot be a permanent f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been issued under section 10 of the Act. In this context reference can be made to observation of their Lordships in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC): ............It is a well-settled principle of law that where the authority making an order has power conferred upon it by statute to make an order made by it an order is made without indicating the provision under which it is made, the order would be deemed to have been made under the provision enabling the making of it. The second notification by invoking the power under section 10 of the Act modified the first notification. All the petitioners are fully aware of the position that the first notification was intended for the new industries and whereas the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
