G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the order dated June 30, 1997 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petitions, whereunder the appellants had challenged the constitutional validity of section 6b (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Kanataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, "the Act") and the Notification No. FD. 49 CSL 96 (11) dated May 30, 1996 (annexure A to the writ petitions) issued under section 8a of the said Act. The appellants are wholesale distributors, stockists and/or manufacturers of drugs and medicines. ( 2 ) FOR appreciating the grounds taken by Mr. B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the scheme of taxation envisaged under the Act needs to be set out in brief. ( 3 ) SECTION 5 of the Act provides for levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. Sub-section (1) thereof provides a general rate of tax at the point of first sale which, with effect from April 1, 1996, is 12 per cent. Sub-section (3) of the said section carves out an exception to sub-section (1) by providing that in respect of the goods mentioned in the Second Schedule, the rate of tax will be the one provided therein. Drugs and medicines finds place at Sl. No. 5 of Part M of the second Schedule and the rate of tax prescribed therein from April 1, 1996 is 8 per cent. ( 4 ) SECTION 6 of the Act contemplates levy of purchase tax under certain circumstances. Section 6b of the Act envisages levy of turnover tax which is under challenge in the present appeals. Sections 6c and 6d of the Act provide for levy of surcharge and cess, but section 6c is now no more on the statute book having been deleted by Karnataka Act No. 5 of 1996 and Karnataka act No. 7 of 1997 with effect from April 1, 1997. It cannot be seriously disputed that for the purpose of convenient administration of the provisions of the Act, which is intended for augmenting the revenues of the State, different nomenclatures have been given to the levies imposed therein, but nonetheless they subscribe and withstand the tests of "tax on sale or purchase of goods", the legislative field under entry 54 of List II (State List) of the Seventh schedule to the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the said levies and rates thereof provided under the respective sections under the Act noticed above, section 8a of the Act empowers the State Government to notify exemptions and reductions of tax. The said section reads as under : "8-A. Power of State Government to notify exemptions and reductions of tax.- (1) The State government may, by notification, make an exemption, or reduction in rate, in respect of any tax payable under this Act - (a) on the sale or purchase of any specified goods or class of goods, at all points in the series of sales by successive dealers; or (b) by any specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover. (c) on the sale or purchase of any specified class of goods by any specified class of dealers in regard to the whole or part of their turnover. (2) Any exemption from tax or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under sub-section (1) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification. (2a) The State Government may, by notification, transpose any entry or part thereof from one schedule to another Schedule and alter the point of levy of sale or purchase, but not so as to enhance the rate of tax in any case : provided that where the point of levy is altered under this sub-section in respect of any goods and if such goods have been subjected to tax under the unaltered entry, then such goods shall not be subjected to tax under the transferred entry. (3) The State Government may, by notification, cancel or vary any notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2a ). " ( 6 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred under section 8a of the Act, the State Government under its notification dated September 27, 1993 as amended from time to time (annexure C) exempted the turnover tax payable under section 6b of the Act by the wholesalers in respect of wholesale turnover of drugs pharmaceutical preparations. A similar notification being dated March 31, 1994 is placed at annexure D. By notification dated March 30, 1996 (annexure E) exemption from tax under section 5 was granted on sales of life-saving drugs as specified in the Schedules thereto. A similar notification being dated March 31, 1994 is placed at annexure D. By notification dated March 30, 1996 (annexure E) exemption from tax under section 5 was granted on sales of life-saving drugs as specified in the Schedules thereto. By another notification of the even date (annexure F), the turnover tax payable under section 6b was reduced in respect of various commodities including medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. But subsequently, the impugned notification dated May 30, 1996 (annexure A) was issued under section 8a (3) by which Sl. No. III of the notification at annexure f was omitted, thereby withdrawing the reduction of turnover tax on drugs and pharmaceutical preparations. ( 7 ) SRI B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the issuance of the impugned notification is constitutionally invalid because (a) the impugned action of the state Government results in enhancement of rate of tax which is not within the competence of the State Government under section 8a of the Act, and, (b) the same is contrary" to the budget speech made by the Finance Minister on the Floor of the Assembly for the financial year 1996-97. 7a. The aforesaid aspects have been considered in detail by the learned single Judge and he has rightly held the same to be untenable for the reasons that by withdrawal of exemption in terms of section 8a of the Act the rate of tax is not enhanced. The rate of tax provided under the Act remains the same, but what is granted or withdrawn is the exemption or reduction thereof which lies within the delegated legislative power of the State Government. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, it has also been rightly held by the learned single Judge that the budget speech made on the Floor of the Legislative Assembly is neither the law nor a declaration which can be held as enforceable through a court of law. Such speeches till translated into law remain in the hi have been conclusively determined by the earlier two Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in the cases of B. P. Automobiles v. State of Karnataka [1984] 55 STC 93 and Shantilal and Brothers v. State of Karnataka [1985] 59 STC 178. Such speeches till translated into law remain in the hi have been conclusively determined by the earlier two Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in the cases of B. P. Automobiles v. State of Karnataka [1984] 55 STC 93 and Shantilal and Brothers v. State of Karnataka [1985] 59 STC 178. But Sri B. P. Gandhi has tried to distinguish the said cases on the ground that clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) to section 6-B (1) of the Act were not there on the statute book at the time when the said cases were decided and, therefore, a de novo appraisal of the validity of provisions is required. In our opinion, this submission is also, equally misconceived because the only difference which has been made by incorporation of the said clauses is that whereas earlier the rate of turnover tax was uniform in respect of all the dealers having turnover exceeding the minimum being exempt but now staggering rate of tax varying between 1 per cent to 3 per cent has been provided depending upon the quantum of the turnover of the dealers. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, it is also now well-settled that it lies within the plenary powers of the legislature and its delegator to provide for different rate of tax in respect of different classes of dealers provided the classification is clear and well intended and is based on a rational basis. Adjudging from the said point of view, it cannot be said that by providing a higher rate of tax for dealers having high turnover is in any way unreasonable or irrational. Therefore, this ground as well fails. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.