LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated May 2, 2002 passed by the State Level Committee annexure K. I.A. II was filed seeking for amendment of the prayer. The same was allowed. In terms of the amendment, petitioner is now challenging only annexure Q dated November 14, 2003.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as under: Petitioner is a limited company. Petitioner is a registered dealer under Section 12 -E of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the K.S.T. Act'). Petitioner has put up a cement unit at Penambur, Mangalore. Petitioner manufactures cement at its various plants located in the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. The cement unit at Mangalore has several basic features. Details of the system established at Mangalore is enumerated in the project report filed at annexure A. The State Government issued a notification dated March 15, 1996 read with notification June 15, 1996 as per annexures B and C. The notifications envisage grant of exemption/deferment of sales tax on the sale of goods manufactured by a new industrial unit set up after April 1, 1996 within the State of Karnataka. Petitioner in the light of the notifications submitted an application. The Joint Director forwarded the said application to the Director of Industries and Commerce with his recommendations in terms of annexure E. Petitioner in the light of the recommendations of the Joint Commissioner sought for an opportunity to represent its case to the office of the Director. An application was filed on January 16, 1999. An opportunity was sought in terms of annexure F. Thereafter respondents rejected the request of the petitioner in terms of annexure G. Aggrieved by annexure G, petitioner filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 32658 and 34399 to 34407 of 1999. This Court after hearing, disposed of the writ petitions in terms of annexure H. Thereafter petitioner received a notice and in response to the notice, petitioner filed his reply on May 31, 2001. Petitioner also explained personally before the State Level Committee. The State level Committee thereafter rejected the case of the petitioner. Annexure K is the endorsement. During the pendency of the writ petition, assessment orders have been passed in terms of annexure M1 to M6 followed by the demand notice annexures LI to 16. Thereafter appeals were filed and request was made to defer the appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the assessment orders. Subsequently, a demand was made in terms of annexure Q. Annexure Q is challenged. Respondents have entered appearance and they have opposed the prayers.

(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel Mr. Sarangan invites my attention to the material facts to contend that the manufacturing activity is being carried on at Mangalore as well. He says that the homogenisation is a must for better quality and the homogenisation takes place at Mangalore. According t the learned Counsel homogenisation is also a manufacturing process and it cannot be excluded. His further submission is that homogenisation is referable to quality of cement and quality cement alone is marketable as per his submissions. He also refers to the notification to contend that the object of the notification is to provide for incentives and those incentives are not to be denied to the petitioner. He strongly relies on the various judgments of this Court in support of his case.