Kwality Poly Products Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 28TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **KWALITY POLY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED PUZHAMPALLAM,MARATHAKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680320.REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SABU JOSE,S/O.C.A.JOSE,AGED 47 YEARS.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 2 STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON SALES TAX EXEMPTION REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695033. 3 DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE ON SALES TAX EXEMPTION REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,GENERAL MANAGER OF DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,AYYANTHOL,THRISSUR,PIN680003. 4 DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695033.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **GP SMT JASMINE M M** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-092020, THE COURT ON 20-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 20[th] day of October 2020** Petitioner, through the instant writ petition, has laid challenge to Exts.P12 order dated 10.3.2003, P21 minutes of the meeting of the 2nd respondent dated 11.8.2017 and P22 proceedings of the Director of Industries and Commerce dated 13.9.2017 with further prayer for declaring the petitioner-unit as eligible for sales tax exemption owing to have taken effective steps within the meaning of Exts.P1 and P2 notifications. 2. In support of the aforementioned prayer, it has been averred that as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Kerala General Tax Act, Government has powers to grant exemption or reduction in rate of tax. By the virtue of the aforementioned powers, Government came out with a notification S.R.O No.1729 of 1993, granting tax exemptions to industrial units or reduction in tax, payable on the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods produced by such industrial units, subject to conditions and restriction, **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **3** specified, in the notification. The aforementioned exemption was withdrawn and amended by a subsequent notification S.R.O No.1092/99 dated 31.12.1999 Ext.P1. Notification of (1999) envisaged certain industries, eligible for exemption or reduction in the sale tax, relevant portion reads thus: 1.i. new industrial units other than public sector undertakings which have been set up or have commenced commercial production before 1st January, 2000. _1.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 unit and (c) applied for financial support from any regular financial institution/government or acquired the necessary plant and machinery. Provided that the unit commences commercial production on or before the 31st day of December, 2000. _1.iii._ an existing unit other than public sector undertaking which has taken effective steps for diversification, expansion or modernization prior to the 1st day of January 2000. An existing industrial unit shall be considered to have taken effective steps for diversification, expansion or modernization. If such industrial unit has, acquired necessary plant and machinery and equipment before the 1st day of January, 2000. Provided that such unit commences commercial production under such diversification, expansion or modernization on or before the 31st day of December, 2000. 1.iv. a sick small scale industrial unit which has been registered as a sick unit before the Director of Industries and Commerce prior to the 1st day of January, 2000.” ## 3. It was amended in the following manner: **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **4** ## **Amendment** ## In the said notification, (1.i) in sub-clause (ii), for the words, figures and bracket, “(b) owned or acquired” or has been allotted land for establishing the industrial unit and (c) applied for financial support from any regular financial institution / government or acquired the necessary plant and machinery provided that the unit “commences commercial production on or before the 31[st] day of December, 2000”, the following shall be substituted, namely;- (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 and machinery, before 1.1.2000 provided that the unit commences commercial production on or before the 31[st] day of December, 2001”; (ii) in sub-clause (iii) for the words and figures “acquired necessary plant and machinery” and equipment before the first day of January 2000, provided that such unit commences commercial products under such diversification, expansion or modernization on or before the “31[st] day of December, 2000”, the following shall be substituted, namely:- (a) or acquired necessary plant and machinery and/or equipment or (b) has owned or acquired or has been allotted land and has applied for loan from any regular financial institution and/or (c) has placed firm orders for the purchase of such plant and machinery and equipment before the 1[st] day of January, 2000 provided that such unit commences commercial production of such diversification, expansion or modernization on or before the 31[st] day of December, 2001.”. A unit shall be deemed to have placed firm orders, for the purchase of plant, machinery and equipment if such unit had made any advance payments therefore by means of demand draft or cheque which has been credited to the account of the seller prior to 1[st] January, 2000. The onus of proving that an industrial unit had placed firm order for purchase of such plant machinery and equipment prior to 1[st] January 2000 shall be on such industrial unit”. (iii) After sub-clause (iv), the following sub-clause shall be inserted, namely:- (iv) where on enquiry it is found that any industrial unit had secured exemption by furnishing false information or **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **5** forged documents, the authority which issued the exemption order, shall after affording such industrial unit a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cancel the exemption.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on submission application for a provisional registration, resulted issued by the certificate dated 15.7.1997 Ext.P3, submission of application for financial assistance dated 5.9.1997, Ext.P4. Letter dated 1.9.1997, Ext.P5 of the District Industries Centre informing that earlier, a shed in a development plot, Athani was allotted but vide letter 22.9.1997, Ext.P6, the petitioner was informed that Ext.P5 stood cancelled. Ext.P6 was not communicated to the petitioner in time, though,the interview was scheduled at 3.10.1997. The intimation of cancellation was received only on 18.11.1997 after repeated enquiries. Petitioner was under the bonafide impression that application for allotment of land had already been approved. petitioner was also prompted by the consideration that purchase of another plot at that juncture will jeopardize its allotment. Owing to the passage of time and in the absence of any final decision, petitioner was constrained to purchase another plot of land for commencement of production. Vide letter 23.11.2001, **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 6** Ext.P7(a), an intimation was sent to General Manager, District Industries Centre for amendment in the registration viz-a-viz the land. 5. Petitioner sought clarification from the Director of Industries and the Government regarding its eligibility for sales tax exemption. The department in one of the communication in respect of a case of one M/s Prashanth Rubbers clarified that for the purpose of grant of exemption from sales tax ‘one’ of the three conditions listed as (a), (b) and (c) was required to be complied with. This fact is evidenced from the communication dated 11.6.2001, Ext.P9. 6. The State Level Committee issued a 'general clarification' vide resolution No.14 of the 2nd respondent dated 4.2.2002, Ext.P10, which was after the cut-off date for commencement for commercial production stipulated in Ext.P2, ie., 31.12.2001, in the absence power to review its own decisions . It was further contended that petitioner had substantially changed its position by investing lakhs of rupees in purchase of another plot . An application dated 9.12.2002, Ext.P11, for sales tax exemption, was submitted. However, to the shock of the petitioner, the same was **7** ## **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** rejected vide Ext.P12 dated 10.3.2003. An appeal, Ext.P13 dated 9.4.2003 was preferred before the 2nd respondent, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2006 without affording an opportunity of hearing. The review petition dated 27.7.2006 was filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent to restore its earlier appeal, Ext.P14. Aggrieved by the non-consideration, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.6679 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.2.2007. Against the aforementioned order, Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2007 was preferred. Allowing the Writ Appeal, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to disposing of the appeal. The revenue recovery proceedings were initiated to recover the amount demanded as sales tax. Challenging the recovery proceedings, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34831 of 2007. 7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had written a letter to the Government indicating the predicament it was placed in on account of the Government's promises, Ext.P15. The aforementioned appeal preferred was considered only in **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 8** 2011, pursuant to a direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11009 of 2010 dated 6.4.2010 for speedy disposal of the appeal. The 2nd respondent noted that certain clarifications regarding the cancellation of allotment of Petitioner's plot were necessary and directed the Director of Industries to obtain report from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thrissur but the file was not available. 8. On 9.11.2011, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thrissur visited the unit in compliance to the direction of the Director of Industries and Commerce. All the documents qua eligibility were produced and necessary clarification was also provided. Thereafter hearing resumed on 17.7.2013. Petitioner, submitted all the materials as evidenced from submissions dated 17.7.2013, Ext.P17. The hearing resumed only on 8.6.2016. Vide impugned decisions dated 11.8.2017, 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's appeal. The proceedings of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.9.2017, Ext.P22. 9. In order to buttress the argument, learned counsel **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 9** has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Pepsico India Holdings v. State of Kerala 2009 KHC 5988** , wherein, it was held that in case of Small Scale Industrial Units (SSI units) mere registration will serve the purpose of exemption. The notification dated 3.11.1993 envisaged granting of exemption for a period of seven years. It was next contended that as far as an SSI Unit concerned, merely a provisional registration would serve the purpose. Even if no installment was necessary for obtaining the benefit. In the instant case, the financial support and registration are of 1997. The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the directions contained in paragraph 42 and 45 of the above mentioned judgment. Even including the question with regard to withdrawal of the benefit extended by notification 1999, by virtue of amendment in 2000 regarding setting up of unit on or before 1.1.2000. Certain conditions were also noticed. The submissions made before the State Level Committee that the application Ext.P11 containing annexures with regard to purchase of material, listing of an order for machinery before 31st December 2001 ie., the date of commencement of **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 10** production. This not only pertained to machinery but crane, electrification etc. It was further contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel also applies to the State, once the benefit was extended, it cannot be modified to the detriment of the petitioner. 10. The reasoning that the petitioner had not applied for loan before 1.1.2000 is incorrect as is evidenced from Ext.P4, which is dated 5.9.1997. There is no such reference to any report from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thrissur who visited the petitioner unit on 9.11.2011. Further reasoning ,that Ext.P5 was only a letter and not allotment is absolutely untenable as from the plain and simple reading thereof, it is evident that the District Industries Centre recommended to allot five sheds in Athani including that to one of the petitioner. Respondents have not chosen to apply liberal construction to the notification and assigned all possible flimsy reasons in not accepting the grant of exemption. 11. This case stands admitted vide order dated 18.12.2017. Counter affidavit has not been filed till the final hearing. However counsel representing the respondents **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 11** supported the impugned order by justifying that the reasoning assigned in Ext.P22 having not complied with the condition No.(b) and (c); would not entitle into grant of exemption by complying only condition No.(a) as is being sought to be projected in case of M/s Prashanth Rubbers, Ernakulam. The allotment was cancelled and the unit had purchased the land only on 1.12.2001, whereas the loan was not applied before 1.1.2000. Therefore the condition No.(b) was not satisfied and as regards condition No.(c), no firm orders for the purchase of plant and machinery before 1.1.2000 have been placed on record. Thus the condition No.(c) was also not satisfied. Rightly so, the application was declined and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Having heard respective counsels and on perusal of documents it is deciphered that the pith and substance of the contention of the respondents, throughout from Exts.P12, P19, P21 and 22 had been that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of not having submitted an application for loan before 1.1.2000 and the land having purchased on 1.12.2001 entailing into dis-entitlement of **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 12** exemption, in my view is wholly preposterous and fallacious, much less erroneous that neither the District level Committee nor the State Level Committee noticed the documents and the submissions of the petitioner, extensively. 13. Ext.P4 is an application dated 5.9.1997 submitted to the Catholic Syrian Bank, Kottapady for obtaining loan by enclosing the copy of SSI Registration Certificate, letter from DIC regarding allotment of Plot No.5 in the Development plot, Athani, Valappaya Village. Not only this, the communication letter of District Industries Centre dated 1.9.1997, Ext.P5 cannot be construed to a proceedings but a decision to allot plot. For sake of brevity, the relevant portion of the letter Ext.P5 is extracted herein below: "In connection with the above, I am to inform you that all the applicants were called for an interview on 19.8.97 and interviewed. I could identify that the following applicants are prepared for purchasing the shed on outright purchases basis. The schemes by them are examined in detail and found technically feasible and economically viable. Hence, I recommend to allot 5 sheds in D.P. Athani as follows: **Sl.No. Name and address Items proposed to be Allotted shed No. of the allottee manufactured** **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **13** 1. xxx 2. xxx 3. Sabu Jose, Mg. Director Kwality Poly Products (P) Ltd. Plastic house wares 5 220 Nehru Nagar, Thrissur 6. and indl. components 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter of similar nature [Pepsico India Holdings P.Ltd. case (supra)] in paragraph 42, while applying the question of interpretation of the notification observed that the notification dated 3.11.1999 was issued in terms of an industrial policy; whereto exemption was to be granted for a period of seven years and it was observed that obtaining of provisional registration in respect of SSI unit was sufficient. For the sake of brevity, the observation of the judgment reads as under: “42. This brings us to the question of interpretation of the notifications. The notification dated 3.11.1993 was issued in terms of an industrial policy; pursuant whereto exemption was to be granted for a period of seven years. Appellant had placed orders for supply of plant and machinery both with advances and without advances. What was necessary was to take effective steps for setting up of new industrial units. A deeming provision existed in terms whereof the effective steps would be considered to have been taken; 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 **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **14** 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 and machinery before 1.1.2000. Although clause (a) has no application in the instant case but it becomes relevant for the purpose of construing the notification so as to measure the level of rigours imposed thereby. In case of SSI units, thus, merely a provisional registration would serve the purpose. Even no investment was necessary for obtaining the benefit. So far as clause (b) is concerned, mere application for financial support from any regular financial institution again would entitle the entrepreneur to obtain the benefit of the exemption notification. It is in the aforementioned context, applications for grant of exemption by the self-financed units are required to be taken into consideration. They are either to acquire or place firm orders for the necessary plant and machinery. It is not that order for entire machinery and equipment were required to be placed for before the first day of January, 2000. Even in relation thereto, a legal fiction has been created stating that if such unit had made any advance payments therefor by means of demand draft or cheque, the requirements would stand satisfied.” 15. In paragraph 45 and 46 of the same judgment, it was observed that the judgment of the single Bench and Division Bench of this Court did not consider the certificate issued by the Director of Industries to bring the case within the parameters of the notification for the purpose of grant of financial exemption. The aforementioned paragraphs read thus: “45. It is also of some significance that the said notification was withdrawn by a notification dated 31.12.1999, subject of course to an exception curved out therein, viz., the industries which had been set up on or before 1.1.2000 and which have already **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **15** commenced commercial production, set up or taken effective steps to establish industrial unit prior to 1.1.2000 were to be allowed the benefit of exemption. That notification stood amended on 31.3.2000 in terms whereof some benefits had been given to an entrepreneur like the appellant, as noticed herein before. Appellant need not have questioned the validity thereof as the notification in question was issued by relaxing the conditions imposed in the notification dated 31.12.1999 which was one of withdrawing the grant of earlier benefits. Thus, by reason of the said notification, certain benefits had been confirmed on it. 16. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the burden of proof was on the appellant. According to the Director of Industries, he had discharged the burden. Only because the procedural sanction of grant of financial exemption was to be received from the Deputy Commissioner (General) Commercial Taxes, the same, in our opinion, would not mean that the conditions had not been satisfied. In any event, the certificate granted by the Director deserved serious consideration. Both the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench did not consider this aspect of the matter.” ## 16. The relevant portion of the decision taken in Ext.P22 rejecting the case of the petitioner reads as under: “In this particular case, the unit has obtained provisional registration on 15.7.1997. Hence condition (a) is complied. Regarding condition (b) the contention of the appellant is that the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thrissur, has allotted land vide proceedings No.B9/5882/96 dated 01.09.1997 at Development plot, Athani. But it is to be noted that the said proceedings dated, 1.9.1997 is not a proceedings but only a letter addressed to the Managing Director, Thrissur District Mini Industrial Estate Co-operative Society, Thrissur intimating the list of applicants identified in the interview held on 19.8.2007 for allotment of shed. Even though the appellant was identified for allotment of shed number, such allotment order was issued by the Managing Director, Thrissur **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **16** District Mini Industrial Estate Co-operative Society to the appellant. Hence this cannot be considered as an effective step for acquiring land. Eventually the unit purchased land only on 01.12.2001. The unit has not applied for loan before 1.1.2000. Hence the unit has not satisfied condition (b). Regarding condition (c), this is not a self financed unit, it is financed by SBI, SSI Branch, Thrissur. All the machinery are purchased after 1.1.2000. No firm orders for purchase of necessary plant and machinery is seen placed before 1.1.2000. The unit started commercial production before 31.12.2001. Hence the condition (c) is not fully complied.” As per clarification, of the SLC condition (a) and either of condition (b) and (c), need to be complied for satisfying eligibility for STE. In the instant case, it can be seen that the unit has satisfied only condition (a) and not satisfied condition (b) or (c). The SLC held on 11.10.2011 deferred the appeal for detailed clarification from the General Manager, DIC, Thrissur, why the shed in the Mini Industrial Estate recommended for allotment to this unit was cancelled/did not materialize. The spirit of SRO No.295/2000 was to extend the benefits of sales tax exemption to those unit that had taken effective steps to start the unit before 1.1.2000. In this case, only condition (a) of the SRO is complied with and conditions (b) and (c) have not been complied with. Hence the unit is not qualified for STE. The SLC held on 8.6.2016 resolved to reject the appeal.” The alleged reasoning, in not complying with the condition (b) and (c) as derived from documents Exts.P4 and P5 is conspicuously absent. The authorities at the helm of affairs are assigned an obligation to examine each and every document submitted in support of the claim for exemption, which as noticed from the impugned proceedings or for the reasons best have not been **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 17** referred. In my view, it is a case of clear cut case of dereliction. I would not be commenting further in fastening the liability on the officers, which reflect application of mind in a most mechanical and sketchy manner. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned orders Ext.P12, P21 and P22 are set aside. The matter is referred to the 2nd respondent, State Level Committee on Sales Tax Exemption, for reconsideration of the issue, in view of the findings as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court referred(supra) and to take a decision in the most pragmatic and reasonable manner by referring to all documents submitted in support of the claim of exemption after affording an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. Since number of years have passed by, I deem it appropriate to fix the time line in taking the decision, which is fixed as forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The authorities, in order to rule out the case of discrimination by applying different yardstick in the case of M/s Prashanth Rubbers will apply their mind, for consideration of sales tax exemption. **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N) 18** With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition stands allowed. **Sd/-** sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **19** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SRO.NO.1092/99 DATED 31.12.1999** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PROVISIONAL REGISTATION DATED 15.07.1997** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION DATED 15.07.1997** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.09.1997 BEFORE THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.09.1997 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.1997 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER-COMPANY DATED 10.11.1997** - **EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.11.2001 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GENERAL MANAGER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GENERAL MANAGER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SLC DECISION NO.30 DATED 11.06.2011** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.14 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.02.2002** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION DATED 09.12.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/8028/02 DIS DATED 10.03.2003** **WP(C).No.40735 OF 2017(N)** **20** - **EXHIBIT P13** - **TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.04.2003** - **EXHIBIT P14** - **THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESTORE ITS EARLIER APPEAL DATED 27.07.2006.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.02.2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FINANCE MINISTER** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2011** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.07.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DATED 11.04.2016** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17.07.2013** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2016** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13.09.2017** **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 2009 KHC 5988.**