JUDGMENT K. SREEDHARAN, J. - When C.M.P. 9723 of 1991 in O.P. 5962 of 1991, C.M.P. 9997 of 1991 in O.P. 6106 of 1991, C.M.P. 10613 of 1991 in O.P. 6424 of 1991 and C.M.P. 11100 of 1991 in O.P. 6666 of 1991 came up for orders, learned counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petitions to be heard and disposed of. Accordingly I heard them at length. O.P. 6831 of 1991, which came up for admission, also relates to the issue raised in the other petitions. So, the learned counsel representing the petitioner wanted that petition also to be disposed of along with the abovementioned petitions. In these circumstances, I am disposing of all these petitions by a common judgment. 2. O.P. 5962 of 1991, by agreement of counsel, is treated as the main original petition. I am referring to the facts and documents as stated and marked in that original petition. 3. First petitioner is an association registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The president is entitled to represent the association. Second and third petitioners are members of the association. They are also dealers registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 4. In the budget speech made by the Finance Minister while presenting the budget for the year 1989-90, proposal was made to give exemption for the goods specified from payment of sales tax on the ground of public interest. Accordingly S.R.O. 504/89 was issued. By that, a general exemption in respect of tax payable on the sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed was granted. Subsequently Government issued S.R.O. 132/90 on 2nd February, 1990. It provided for exemption in respect of tax payable on the sale of manufactured poultry feed and cattle-feed among other things for the period commencing from 1st April, 1989 and ending with 31st March, 1990. It provided that tax, if any collected, should be paid over to the Government. Later, on 28th March, 1990, Government issued S.R.O. 467/90 amending S.R.O. 132/90. The amendment was to extend the period of the operation of S.R.O. 132/90 till March 31, 1991. Still later Government issued exhibit Pl, S.R.O. 432/91 dated March 30, 1991. As per that notification, exemption in respect of tax payable in relation to the goods made mention of in Schedule I by persons specified in Schedule II was granted. The amendment was to extend the period of the operation of S.R.O. 132/90 till March 31, 1991. Still later Government issued exhibit Pl, S.R.O. 432/91 dated March 30, 1991. As per that notification, exemption in respect of tax payable in relation to the goods made mention of in Schedule I by persons specified in Schedule II was granted. As per that notification, cattle-feed manufactured and sold by units of the Kerala Livestock Development Board Limited, hereinafter referred to as "the Board", was exempted from paying sales tax. So also milk producers' co-operative societies were exempted from payment of sales tax in respect of sale of cattle-feed, namely coconut oil cake, gingelly oil cake, groundnut oil cake, cotton-seed and cotton-seed cake, bran, and manufactured cattle-feed to their members. As per this notification, petitioners are not entitled to any exemption from payment of sales tax on the sale of cattle-feed and poultry feed. 5. The main argument advanced by the petitioners is that by S.R.O. 504/89 a blanket exemption from sales tax on sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed was granted by the Government. That exemption has not been validly revoked or varied by another notification under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Therefore the exemption granted by S.R.O. 504/89 still continues to be in force. Consequently petitioners were not entitled to collect sales tax on the sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed. They did not in fact collect sales tax on such sale. So, in the return filed subsequent to the expiry of the accounting year 1990-91, they did not include the turnover on sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed. That will not in any way result in suppression of account. Consequently they are not liable for the penalties under section 45A of the Act. Steps have new been taken by the respondents to impose penalty on them under section 45A of the Act for not showing the turnover on sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed in their returns. This is not sanctioned by law. It is also contended that petitioners should not be made liable for any penal action for not showing the turnover of the sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed in their accounts for the accounting year 1991-92. 6. This is not sanctioned by law. It is also contended that petitioners should not be made liable for any penal action for not showing the turnover of the sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed in their accounts for the accounting year 1991-92. 6. Yet another contention that was raised by the petitioners is that exhibit Pl notification is violative of the provisions contained in article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution. Benefit has been given to the cattle-feed manufactured and sold by units of the Board. Petitioners who are getting cattle-feed from outside the State will not be in a position to compete with the Board, in the sale of cattle-feed because the Board will be selling cattle-feed at a lesser price. Petitioners again attack exhibit P1 notification, which confers benefits to the milk producers' co-operative societies. The sales of cattle feed by the milk producers' co-operative societies are exempt from sales tax. This exemption will also be against the provisions contained in article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution. 7. Shri N. N. Divakaran Pillai, learned Special Government Pleader, placed before court Notification dated 2nd February, 1990. As per that notification, S.R.O. 131/90 was issued in exercise of the powers under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. That notification amended S.R.O. 504/89 by omitting item 6, poultry feed and cattle-feed, from S.R.O. 504/89. S.R.O. 131/90 specifically amends S.R.O. 504/89 with effect from 2nd February, 1990. Consequently S.R.O. 504/89 in so far as it related to poultry feed and cattle-feed can have no effect with effect from 2nd February, 1990. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefit of S.R.O. 504/89. The result is the sale of poultry feed and cattle-feed is exigible to tax and the petitioners cannot absolve their liability under the Act. It is conceded that cattle-feed and poultry feed are covered by item 34 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Since petitioners were dealing in poultry feed and cattle-feed, they should have included the turnover in their returns. The action taken against the petitioners for the omission to include the turnover is not to be interfered with by this Court on the ground of exemption granted by S.R.O. 504/89. The first contention raised by the petitioners is thus overruled. 8. Since petitioners were dealing in poultry feed and cattle-feed, they should have included the turnover in their returns. The action taken against the petitioners for the omission to include the turnover is not to be interfered with by this Court on the ground of exemption granted by S.R.O. 504/89. The first contention raised by the petitioners is thus overruled. 8. In O.P. 6424 of 1991 it is averred : "Petitioners submit that the 3rd respondent manufactures only prepared cattle-feeds. The other cattle-feed like groundnut oil cake, gingelly oil cake, cotton-seed oil cake, etc., are to be purchased from other States. The 3rd respondent manufactures only 10 per cent of the total consumption in the State. 90 per cent of the cattle-feed consumption has to be obtained from other States." Petitioners have no case that the cattle-feed brought from outside the State and manufactured inside the State by manufacturers other than the Board are not treated similarly. The Board alone is given a special treatment by exhibit P1 Notification, S.R.O. 432/91. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the Board is not manufacturing any cattle-feed. Even on the petitioners' own showing the cattle-feed manufactured by them is less than 10 per cent of the requirements of the State. The Board is a creation of the State. In public interest the Board, an organ of the State is given certain benefit in case it manufactures cattle-feed and poultry feed. Can it be treated as violative of the provisions of the Constitution ? 9. In the case of milk producers' co-operative society, their sale of cattle-feed to their members is exempted from sales tax liability. It is for helping the co-operative movement in the trade of milk. The members of the society are producers of milk. They keep one or two cows. The milk collected from it is handed over to the societies. After pasteurisation it is distributed to the public. Cattle-feed supplied to the members who rear the cows at concessional rates will enable the society to distribute milk to the public at reasonable price. The sale of cattle-feed to the members is intended for controlling the price of milk produced by the members of the milk producers' co-operative societies. It is a part of the operation flood. Cattle-feed supplied to the members who rear the cows at concessional rates will enable the society to distribute milk to the public at reasonable price. The sale of cattle-feed to the members is intended for controlling the price of milk produced by the members of the milk producers' co-operative societies. It is a part of the operation flood. Can the concessions shown to the Board or the societies he treated as violative of the provisions contained in article 301 read with article 304(a) of the Constitution ? 10. In Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232 ; [1961] 1 SCR 809, Gajendragadkar, J., (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed. "In construing article 301 we must, therefore, have regard to the general scheme of our Constitution as well as the particular provisions in regard to taxing laws. The construction of article 301 should not be determined on a purely academic or doctrinaire considerations; in construing the said article we must adopt a realistic approach and bear in wind the essential features of the separation of powers on which our Constitution rests. It is a Federal Constitution which we are interpreting, and so the impact of article 301 must be judged accordingly. Besides, it is not irrelevant to remember in this connection that the article we are construing imposes a constitutional limitation on the power of the Parliament and State Legislatures to levy taxes, and generally, but for such limitation, the power of taxation would be presumed to be for public good and would not be subject to judicial review or scrutiny. Thus considered, we think it would be reasonable and proper to hold that restrictions, freedom from which is guaranteed by article 301, would be such restrictions as directly and immediately restrict or impede the free flow or movement of trade. Taxes may and do amount to restrictions; but it is only such taxes as directly and immediately restrict trade that would fall within the purview of article 301. The argument that all taxes should be governed by article 301 whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot be upheld. The argument that all taxes should be governed by article 301 whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot be upheld. If the said argument is accepted it would mean, for instance, that even a legislative enactment prescribing the minimum wages to industrial employees may fall under Part XIII because in an economic sense an additional wage bill may indirectly affect trade or commerce. We are therefore satisfied that in determining the limits of the width and amplitude of the freedom guaranteed by article 301 a rational and workable test to apply would be : Does the impugned restriction operate directly or immediately on trade or its movement ?" This aspect was again dealt with by their Lordships in Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. State of Punjab [1990] 77 STC 82 (SC). After an exhaustive survey of the entire law and decisions their Lordships observed : "It has to be reiterated that sales tax laws in all the States provide for exemption. It is well-settled that the different entries in Lists I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule deal with the fields of legislation, and these should be construed widely, liberally and harmoniously. And these entries have been construed to include ancillary or incidental power. Power to grant exemption is inherent in all taxing legislations. Economic unity is a desired goal, economic equilibrium and prosperity is also the goal. Development on parity is one of the commitments of the Constitution. Directive principles enshrined in articles 38 and 39 must be harmonised with economic unity as well as economic development of developed and under-developed areas. In that light on article 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary that the prohibitions in article 301 and the scope of article 304(a) and (b) should be understood and construed. Constitution is a living organism and the latent meaning of the expressions used can be given effect to only if a particular situation arises. It is not that with changing times the meaning changes but changing times illustrate and illuminate the meaning of the expressions used. The connotation of the expressions used takes its shape and colour in evolving dynamic situations. A backward State or a disturbed State cannot with parity engage in competition with advanced or developed States. It is not that with changing times the meaning changes but changing times illustrate and illuminate the meaning of the expressions used. The connotation of the expressions used takes its shape and colour in evolving dynamic situations. A backward State or a disturbed State cannot with parity engage in competition with advanced or developed States. Even within a State, there are often backward areas which can be developed only if some special incentives are granted. If the incentives in the form of subsidies or grant are given to any part or unit of a State so that it may come out of its limping or infancy to compete as equals with others, that, in our opinion, does not and cannot contravene the spirit and the letter of Part XIII of the Constitution. However, this is permissible only if there is a valid reason, that is to say, if there are justifiable and rational reasons for differentiation." 11. When exhibit P1 is examined in the light of the principles stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and where the object sought to be achieved by it is realised, I have no hesitation in holding that the exemption granted to the Board and the co-operative society in S.R.O. 432/91 is perfectly valid and has to be upheld. I do so. In the instant case an organ of the State, the Board is given concession. This Board, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, does not manufacture any cattle feed or poultry feed. Even as per the averments made by petitioners the Board is manufacturing less than 10 per cent of the State's requirements. A concession given to this negligible quantity, in public interest cannot be held to offend the constitutional mandates. One of the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution enjoins the State to promote cottage industries on co-operative basis in rural areas. The members in item 1 of Schedule II who get the benefit of exhibit P1 notification are engaged in the co-operative movement in producing milk. The concession shown to them is certainly in public interest. It is to control the price of milk as well. 12. But for S.R.O. 504/89, petitioners who are dealers in cattle-feed and poultry feed are to include the turnover in their returns. The concession given by that notification was withdrawn by S.R.O. 131/90. The concession shown to them is certainly in public interest. It is to control the price of milk as well. 12. But for S.R.O. 504/89, petitioners who are dealers in cattle-feed and poultry feed are to include the turnover in their returns. The concession given by that notification was withdrawn by S.R.O. 131/90. Thereafter petitioners are not entitled to any concession in respect of the turnover relating to sale of cattle-feed and poultry feed. They should have included that turnover in the returns filed by them. Petitioners did not include it in the returns filed. So they subjected themselves to proceedings under section 45A of the Act. Viewed in this manner I do not find any reason to interfere with the steps taken by the authorities under section 45A of the Act either. In the result petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. Original petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.