JUDGMENT A. S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, J. – The petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit with the name and style Mekha Timbers and Saw Mills, Podiyadi. A partnership firm was formed with the petitioner as the Managing partner in the year 1987. The unit is registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Kerala and is allotted the number 09/13/01226/99/PMT/SSI. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sized timber and job work in timber sawing using timber logs. The second respondent, namely, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Pathanamthitta granted a permanent registration as a small-scale industrial unit. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government granted various reliefs to the small-scale industrial units by issuing various Government orders. One such relief is granting sales tax exemption to small-scale industries for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The petitioner's unit started functioning on June 1, 1987. The petitioner started the unit relying on the promise of the first respondent that his unit will also get sales tax exemption for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. On the basis of the promise by the first respondent, the petitioner took up the venture of starting the saw mill. The petitioner also applied for sales tax exemption for his unit for a period of five years. The second respondent after satisfying himself the nature of manufacture made by the petitioner's industrial unit and relying on the various Government orders, by an order dated November 1, 1989 granted sales tax exemption to the petitioner's unit for a period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. 3. It is stated by the petitioner, in paragraph 5 of the original petition, that the second respondent before issuing the certificate (exhibit PI) conducted enquiries and satisfied himself about the eligibility of the unit for sales tax exemption under the various provisions of the Government orders for the manufacture and sale of sized timber for a period of five years from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. In view of this, the petitioner did not collect any sales tax from any person. In view of this, the petitioner did not collect any sales tax from any person. While so, the petitioner was rather shocked to receive a notice dated September 24, 1991 from the second respondent calling upon him to send a reply as to why the sales tax exemption certificate issued to the petitioner should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation on October 4, 1991. But, however, the General Manager, District Industries Centre (2nd respondent) cancelled the sales tax exemption certificate with retrospective effect from June 1, 1987 for the product "sized timber", by order dated November 16, 1991, a copy of the same is marked as exhibit P4. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the above original petition praying this Court to quash exhibit P4 and for a further declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales tax since it has not collected the same on the basis of exhibit P1 certificate. There is yet another prayer for a declaration that the petitioner's unit is entitled for sales tax exemption as mentioned in exhibit P1, that is, for the entire period of five years from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. 4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. The facts as set out in the original petition by the petitioner has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner failed to submit reply to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent and hence the second respondent took up the matter with the District Level Committee for sales tax exemption constituted as per G.O. (P) No. 95/91/TD dated May 10, 1991 and the District Level Committee, at its meeting held on October 10, 1991, resolved to cancel the order of the second respondent and accordingly the same was cancelled by order dated November 16, 1991. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the action of the second respondent is legal and proper and is in pursuance of the Government directions issued from time to time. It is further claimed stated that when the Government is empowered to grant sales tax exemption, equally it has the power to cancel the exemption if it is found that the exemption was erroneously granted. It is further claimed stated that when the Government is empowered to grant sales tax exemption, equally it has the power to cancel the exemption if it is found that the exemption was erroneously granted. The stand of the Government has been further justified in the counter-affidavit by stating that the second respondent took steps to cancel the exemption granted to the petitioner only in conformity with the rulings of the apex Court in [1985] 60 STC 213 (State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.) and (1987) 66 STC 100 (Ker) [Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. Kunhalavi & Co.], wherein the apex Court ruled that when the timber is sized there is no manufacture and hence no question of exemption arises. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 6. Questioning the correctness of the impugned order (exhibit P4), the learned counsel for the petitioner put forth the following arguments for consideration : (1) the petitioner's unit, which is admittedly a small-scale industrial unit, relying on the assurance given by the Government in S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980, made necessary application well in time and in fact by a communication dated November 1, 1989 (exhibit P1), the request of the petitioner was accepted and the General Manager, District Industries Centre issued a certificate by virtue of rule 4 of the Rules for grant of sales tax concession to small-scale industrial units and further it is stated specifically therein that the unit will produce the sales tax exemption certificate before the sales tax authorities for claiming sales tax exemption. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though such certificate was issued on November 1, 1989, the same was for a period of five years from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. Secondly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner misled the authorities but in fact it made a bona fide application for exemption which was also considered by the District Industries Centre and only after due enquiries the order granting exemption was passed and in such a situation the petitioner did not collect sales tax right from June 1, 1987 and that the impugned order (exhibit P4) cancelling the said exemption with retrospective effect from June 1, 1987 is totally erroneous. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on two rulings reported in Kitchen Aid v. State of M.P. [1998] 110 STC 109 (MP) and Kitchen Aid v. General Manager, District Industries Centre [1996] 102 STC 233 (MP) and would contend that since the firm carried on its business on the basis of the assurance given it would be now too harsh for the respondents to ask for the payment of tax for the period commencing from June 1, 1987. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that each case must be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and it is the duty of the court to see that proper justice is rendered with reference to the facts of that case and hard and fast rule cannot be laid. 7. As narrated above, the petitioner's unit commenced its production on June 1, 1987. It appears that even before that period necessary steps were taken to get a certificate from the District Industries Centre which would enable the firm to refrain from collecting the sales tax. The said application was examined by the second respondent and of course after due enquiry the second respondent issued a certificate dated November 1, 1989 granting sales tax exemption for a period of five years commencing from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992. The petitioner's firm is engaged in the manufacture of sized timber and job work in timber sawing by using timber logs. Admittedly, die petitioner's firm did not collect sales tax on its sales from June 1, 1987 to November 16, 1991 till the sales tax exemption certificate was cancelled. It is the contention of the petitioner that right from June 1, 1987 the petitioner has been submitting its monthly returns as well as yearly returns, to the sales tax authorities and that apart the certificate granting sales tax exemption which is dated November 1, 1989 was communicated by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, as could be seen from the copy of exhibit Pi. Placing reliance on all these circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's firm which commenced its production from June 1, 1987 did not collect any sales tax. Placing reliance on all these circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's firm which commenced its production from June 1, 1987 did not collect any sales tax. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be found fault, in these circumstances, in not collecting sales tax for the period from June 1, 1987 to November 16, 1991, when the certificate was granted on the principles of legitimate expectation. Even thereafter according to the petitioner from November 1, 1989 when the certificate was issued, till November 16, 1991 when the certificate was very much in force for non-collection of sales tax the petitioner cannot be found fault. 8. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner not for the entire period from June 1, 1987 to May 31, 1992, but only for the period November 1, 1989 to November 16, 1991. True, the petitioner as well as the industries centre proceeded on the basis as if the petitioner's unit would be entitled for sales tax exemption. May be that both the petitioner and the District Industries Centre proceeded on a bona fide erroneous understanding of the law. Way back as early as March 1, 1985, in a case reported in [1990] 79 STC 149 (MP) [FB] (Kher Stone Crusher v. General Manager, District Industries Centre) ruled that to say that a particular process is a manufacturing process, there must be transformation, that a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character or use. The claim of the petitioner that the bona fide thought that his unit will be granted sales tax exemption because the authorities also granted exemption for other similar units and was under the legitimate expectation that the certificate would be granted to it and that is why he did not collect sales tax for the period from June 1, 1987, cannot be accepted. It is presumed that every citizen of the land is aware of the legal position. The ignorance of the District Industries Centre also in this regard will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. That apart, another aspect has to be noted in this connection. Though the petitioner applied for sales tax exemption, that was granted only on November 1, 1989. The ignorance of the District Industries Centre also in this regard will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. That apart, another aspect has to be noted in this connection. Though the petitioner applied for sales tax exemption, that was granted only on November 1, 1989. So, the failure on the part of the petitioner in not collecting the sales tax can be justified only for the period thereafter till the date of cancellation of the certificate. Now, in this case, the show cause notice was given before cancelling the sales tax exemption which is dated September 24, 1991 and finally the certificate was cancelled or November 16, 1991. Of course, the petitioner would submit that for the period from November 17, 1991 he has been collecting sales tax and remitting the same to the Government. The decision referred to by the petitioner in support of his contention, namely, K. P. Enterprises v. Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1996] 102 STC 483 (W), in fact this Court may point out is rather against the petitioner. In para 21 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows : ".... This cannot be permitted because it will amount to causing greater hardship to the assessee because the assessee has acted upon the eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority and on the basis of the appreciation of facts, the authority has now changed its opinion and wants to withdraw the certificate ...." So, that was a case where the assessee did not collect sales tax only after obtaining the eligibility certificate. But, in this case, even from June 1, 1987 the assessee did not collect sales tax. 9. In this view of the matter, this Court holds that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax for the period from June 1, 1987 to October 31, 1989. The petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax for the period from November 1, 1989 to November 16, 1991. The original petition is allowed in part. Order on C.M.P. No. 22131 of 1991 in O.P. No. 12730 of 1991-M dismissed. Petition allowed in part.