Accountants and
Management Consultants                                         GRANT THORNTON
Grant Thornton LLP
The U.S. Member Firm of
Grant Thornton International


April 4, 2003

Mr. Douglas Shane Hackett
Chief Executive Officer
Innovative Software Technologies, Inc.
204 NW Platte Valley Drive
Riverside, MO  64150


Board of Directors
Innovative Software Technologies, Inc.
5072 North 300 West
Provo, UT  84604

Dear Sirs:

We are  writing to you as the senior  management  and  directors  of  Innovative
Software  Technologies,  Inc. (the Company) to inform you that matters have come
to our attention  that call into question the accuracy of the Company's  filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

First, as you know, the company has repeatedly  directed us to communicate  with
its  consultant,  William  E.  Chipman,  Sr.,  with  respect  to  a  variety  of
substantive  financial  matters.  We have  therefore  worked  with and  received
representation from Mr. Chipman in auditing the Company's 2001 and 2000 year-end
financial  statements and in reviewing the Company's certain quarterly financial
statements  for 2001 and 2002 filed with the SEC. We have recently  learned that
Mr. Chipman has a history of criminal convictions involving, among other things,
the fraudulent sale of securities and the  falsification of records.  Because of
these facts, Grant Thornton must question the reliability of the information Mr.
Chipman  provided in connection with the preparation of the Company's  financial
statements  and our related  audit and review  procedures.  We also question the
Company's  good  faith in  failing  to  disclose  to us Mr.  Chipman's  criminal
convictions  for tax fraud and larceny when we agreed to serve as the  Company's
independent accountants.

Second,  in 2001 and 2002,  the Company  reported  revenues from the sale of its
software to several entities in exchange for securities.  In its  representation
letters,  the Company has assured us that no  relationship  exists  between the
Company and its  officers  on the one hand,  and these  buyers on the other.  It
appears,  however, that Mr. Chipman, who clearly plays a significant role in the
Company's  management  and  operations,  may  have  some  relationship  to these
entities. More particularly, the Company's software sale in the third quarter of
2002 in exchange for securities is  potentially  problematic in that the Company




Suite 350
5252 N Edgewood Drive
Provo, UT  84604
Tel 801 802-9200
Fax 801 802-7721
                                      1


reported revenues from the sale based upon the fair value of the preferred stock
it received.  Earlier, however, the Company had determined that the common stock
of the same issuer had virtually no value. After reporting  significant revenues
from the sale, the Company subsequently determined that the preferred stock also
had little value.

Taken together,  these  circumstances cause us to doubt whether the transactions
reported by the Company in its public filings, including, without limitation the
software sales described in the above paragraphs,  have any economic  substance.
Recording transactions that do not have economic substance may be deemed illegal
acts within the meaning of Section 10A of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934.
We urge you to consult securities counsel to advise you of your responsibilities
in these circumstances.  That consultation should also include  consideration of
the steps that may be  required  to remedy  any  illegal  conduct  that may have
occurred.

Section 10A improses  responsibilities  on both  registrant and their  auditors.
After  being  notified  that an  illegal  act may have  occurred,  the  Board of
Directors is required to proceed  expeditiously  to address whether it is likely
that an illegal act has occurred and, if so, to implement  promptly any remedial
action deemed appropriate.  We emphasize that time is of the essence. Failure of
the Board to fulfill promptly its  responsibilities  requires an auditor to make
the formal  report to the Board  mandated  by Section  10A.  The Board  would be
required  to notify the SEC that such a report was  received;  failure to notify
the SEC would  require  us to  provide  the  report to them  directly.  In these
circumstances,  we ask that you advise us no later than April 11,  2003,  of the
steps taken to address this matter.

Yours truly,

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP








                                       2