TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingle Judge dismissing W.P. (C) No. 1512 of 2004 filed by the appellant. The appellant is a small-scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of industrial and medical oxygen. The unit is situate at Chelari, Thenhipalam, District Malappuram. It is registered as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act"). It applied for sales tax exemption to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Malappuram. The application was rejected on the ground that the unit had not taken effective steps to start the industry before January 1, 2000. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Director of Industries and Commerce, Thiruvananthapuram, which was dismissed on (1)Repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after these amendments was made applicable only to the following amongst other categories of industries: "(ii) new industrial units other than public sector undertakings which have taken effective steps for setting up new industrial unit prior to the 1st day of January, 2000. An industrial unit shall be considered to have taken such effective steps if it has, (a) obtained provisional registration (applicable only in the case of SSI units), (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....three conditions in sub-clause (a), (b) or (c) of clause (ii) is satisfied, the unit should be considered to have taken effective steps so as to be entitled to claim sales tax exemption. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on some observations made by a learned single Judge in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala (O.P. No. 8563 of 2003) decided on January 7, 2004(1). Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the condition in clause (a) regarding provisional registration has to be satisfied by every small-scale industrial unit, if it claims exemption and in addition, it has to own or acquire or has to be allotted land for establishing the industrial unit and if it has applied for financial su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustrial unit and the second part of this clause relates to the financial support which it may require. If the unit is to apply for financial support from any regular financial institution or Government, it must apply for such financial support before January 1, 2000. Then comes clause (c). The word "or" appearing after clause (b) and before clause (c) makes it clear that clause (c) is an alternative to the second part of clause (b). Both, the second part of clause (b) and clause (c) deal with the financial aspect of the unit. If the unit requires financial support, then the second part of clause (b) has to be satisfied in addition to the first part. But, if the unit is a self-financing institution, then clause (c) will have to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause (c) have also to be satisfied. If these clauses are satisfied cumulatively, it is only then that a small-scale industrial unit will become eligible to claim sales tax exemption. Let us now examine the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited (O.P. No. 8563 of 2003) decided on January 7, 2004 was not a case of a small-scale industrial unit and, therefore, clause (a) was not required to be satisfied in that case. The question that arose in that case was whether the unit had satisfied sub-clause (c) of clause (ii). The question whether all the three sub-clauses of clause (ii) were to be satisfied cumulatively or whether any one of them could be satisfied to claim exemption from....