JUDGMENT K. K. USHA, J. – Revision petition is at the instance of the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. The assessee is engaged in production of electronic goods, one item being electronic musical door bell. It was the contention of the assessee that the above item is liable to be taxed only at the rate of 4 per cent in view of the provisions contained under S.R.O. No. 748/89 dated May 12, 1989. The assessing authority did not accept the contention. The assessment which was originally computed at 4 per cent was revised subsequently under section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the turnover of the musical bell was brought to tax liability at 15 per cent. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) successfully. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, State filed T.A. No. 351 of 1996 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) suo motu rectified the original order dated August 8, 1995 by a rectification order dated May 31, 1996 holding that the assessee will not get the benefit of exemption in respect of the turnover of musical door bell under S.R.O. No. 748/89. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the subsequent order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by filing T.A. No. 858 of 1996. The two appeals were disposed of by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, by a common order dated March 19, 1997 affirming the revised assessment order passed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee has come up in revision. 2. Electrical goods like electrical systems, instruments, apparatus and appliances, etc., were included under item 49 in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. During the relevant period, the rate of tax was 15 per cent. In exercise of the power conferred under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Government of Kerala issued S.R.O. No. 748/89 having considered it necessary in public interest to make a reduction in respect of the rates of tax payable under the Act on the sale of television sets and electronic goods mentioned in the Schedule attached to the S.R.O. from 15 per cent to 4 per cent. Musical door bell was not one of the items included inthe Schedule attached to the S.R.O. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that non-inclusion of musical door bell in the list of items granting concessional rate of tax is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the notification preceding S.R.O. No. 748/89 and also in the notification subsequently issued, musical door bell was included as an item. There was no justification for not including this item in S.R.O. No. 748/89. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, S.R.O. No. 748/89 has to be interpreted in such a manner that the concessional rate would apply to electronic musical door bell also. 3. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka and also a decision of the Supreme Court in support of her contention. In M.P. Shoe House v. State of M.P. [1987] 67 STC 427 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had occasion o consider the question whether a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Government exempting from payment of sales tax, all sales of footwear made of rubber or plastic for a prescribed period restricting the exemption to sales by a dealer, who deals exclusively in footwear made of rubber and/or plastic was valid. The High Court took the view that the restriction making the exemption available only to dealers who are exclusively dealing with footwear has no nexus to the object of granting exemption and therefore the restriction in the exemption made as above was quashed as arbitrary. In Kamat & Co. v. State of Karnataka [1991] 80 STC 226, the Karnataka High Court considered the question whether exemption from payment of sales tax granted to Central Arecanut Marketing and Processing Co-operative Limited on its sales of arecanut in the course of inter-State trade was violative of article 14 of the Constitution since it discriminates against other registered dealers. The challenge was upheld by the High Court. We are of the view that these two decisions are of no help to the petitioner. It is also to be noted that a similar concession granted to the co-operative society had been upheld by this Court in Quilon Merchants Chamber of Commerce v. State of Kerala (1991) KLJ (TC) 634. The challenge was upheld by the High Court. We are of the view that these two decisions are of no help to the petitioner. It is also to be noted that a similar concession granted to the co-operative society had been upheld by this Court in Quilon Merchants Chamber of Commerce v. State of Kerala (1991) KLJ (TC) 634. Another decision relied on by the learned counsel is that of the Supreme Court in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 73 STC 346. In the above case arishtams and asavas, which are ayurvedic medicinal preparations, were classified under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, separately under item No. 135 of the First Schedule attracting a rate of sales tax of 30 per cent, whereas all other ayurvedic medicinal preparations were shown under item No. 95 and were subjected to a lesser rate of tax. The court took the view that arishtams and asavas were ayurvedic medicinal preparations and there was no reason that they should be treated differently from the general class of ayurvedic medicines by item No. 95. 4. But in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Under the notification which preceded S.R.O. No. 748/89 exemption was granted generally to all electronic goods manufactured within the State. But under S.R.O. No. 748/89 exemption was granted only in respect of selected items of electronic goods. There was no case that except electronic musical door bell all other items coming under electronic goods mentioned were granted exemption. It is also relevant to note that subsequently in 1992 S.R.O. No. 499/92 was issued bringing in amendment to the Schedule of the earlier Notification S.R.O. No. 371/92 issued immediately after S.R.O. No. 748/89. By this amendment, several items of electronic goods were added to the Schedule. Thus, electronic musical door bell was also included among the items entitled for concession. The above would show that the decision of the Supreme Court in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 73 STC 346 has no application to the present case. It would also show that there is no merit in the contention raised by the assessee that non-inclusion of musical door bell was an inadvertent omission in the original Schedule attached to S.R.O. No. 748/89 and therefore it should be treated as one of the items eligible for exemption. 5. It would also show that there is no merit in the contention raised by the assessee that non-inclusion of musical door bell was an inadvertent omission in the original Schedule attached to S.R.O. No. 748/89 and therefore it should be treated as one of the items eligible for exemption. 5. This Court had occasion to consider the question of the right of the dealers to claim exemption when a particular item is not included in the category, in K. V. Gangadharan v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker); that there is no right as such for a dealer to get exemption and unless he satisfies the conditions contained under the notification granting such exemption, he cannot claim the benefit of exemption. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel that non-inclusion of the item of musical door bell in the list of electronic goods appended to Notification S.R.O. No. 748/89 is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. There may be several considerations bearing directly on the choice of rate of tax, which may bear with the State Government including an intention to encourage a certain trade or industry in the context of the State policy for economic growth. It is not for the court to decide whether denial of exemption regarding of tax to a particular item is justified or not. As mentioned earlier, in S.R.O. No. 748/89, the intention is very clear that exemption was meant not for all items of electronic goods, but only in respect of selected electronic goods. That being the object of the notification itself, we do not find any reason to complain that non-inclusion of electronic musical door bell in the list appended to the notification is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. We find no merit in the revision petition and it stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.