The central legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of exemption from sale tax based on Ext.P11 SRO, when the petitioner's unit satisfied the requirements under Ext.P10 SRO, was not correct or sustainable.

[CR]

Whether the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for exemption from payment of sale tax in respect of 'chilly powder' and 'coriander powder' as per Ext.P5 and modified as per Ext.P6 placing reliance on 'Ext.P7 SRO' is correct or proper, is the moot point involved in this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm, constituted by three women (one, a minor represented by guardian) as the partners and registered as an 'SSI unit' before the 4th respondent as borne by Ext.P1 certificate of registration. The said industrial unit was set up in the year 1991 and commercial production was set up in the very same year. The product manufactured as shown in Ext.P1, is 'curry powder', which was later amended including/incorporating, chilly powder, coriander powder, turmeric powder, sambar powder, meat masala and pickle powder. It is stated that, by virtue of the policy of the Government, the petitioner's industrial unit being owned and operated exclusively by women, has been classified as a project under the 'Women Industrial Programme' (WIP) as reflected from Ext. P3 certificate issued in this regard. By virtue of the classification as above, such units forming part of 'WIP' are entitled to tax discount and various other benefits are provided by the Government from time to time. Accordingly, taking note of the contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner being a WIP unit, Ext.P3 exemption was given from collecting payment of any sales tax for a period of 7 years from 20.11.1991 to 19.11.1998. It is stated that the petitioner enjoys the benefit of Ext.P3 exemption and the petitioner had been producing and marketing the products without collecting any sales tax.

3. While so, a notice was issued in the year 1996 stating that some of the items marketed by the petitioner were exigible to tax and required to satisfy the liability. Immediately the petitioner approached the Government by filing petitions dated 27.8.1998 and 12.8.1998 and after considering the same, the petitioner was instructed by the Government as per Ext.P4 communication dated 15.9.1998, to apply for amendment of the SSI registration certificate for including the items, for which sales tax exemption was requested and then to apply for ST exemption for those items.

4. In tune with the intimation given by the Government as above, the petitioner took necessary steps to have the products arrayed and shown separately in Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration and after considering the request, the same was corrected and later incorporated in the certificate of registration as revealed from the second page of Ext.P1, giving the different items/products as items 1 to 6 vide the amendment dated on 18.9.1998. As per the said endorsement, the products manufactured and marketed by the petitioner are:-

1. Chilly powder, 2. Coriander powder, 3. Turmeric Powder, 4. Sampar powder, 5. Meat Masala and 6. Pickle powder. On the basis of the amendment carried out as above, the petitioner submitted a fresh application for exemption as instructed by the Government, vide Ext.P4; which was considered by the 4th respondent and exemption was granted only in respect of "sampar powder, meat masala and pickle powder", while the claim in respect of the other items was rejected.

5. In the meanwhile , as per the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Tatson Food Industries V. State of Kerala 1999 (3) KLT 174 (FB), it was held that 'turmeric' and 'turmeric powder' were two different entities and that manufacturing process was very much involved in converting turmeric into turmeric powder. Based on the said decision, the matter was got considered by the 4th respondent afresh and accordingly, Ext.P6 modified order was passed granting exemption also including 'turmeric powder' but leaving out 'chilly powder' and 'coriander powder'.

6. Incidentally, it is to be noted that exemption was being given by the 4th respondent, as borne by Ext.P5 and P6, on the bas