JUDGMENT P. SHANMUGAM, J. – Petitioner is an authorised wholesale dealer for rationed articles. He has challenged the notices, exhibits Pi to P4, issued by the 2nd respondent directing to pay the additional registration fee. This original petition challenging the notices issued on May 17, 1996 cannot be challenged after a delay of nearly 3 years. The original petition has to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 13(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") exempts the registration of an authorised retailer or wholesale distributor dealing exclusively in palmoline and rationed articles (rice, wheat, sugar and kerosene) under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. According to him subsequently sooji and maida were allotted to him for dealing as rationed articles and therefore they cannot be taken into account for the purpose of registration fee. This contention cannot be accepted. In so far as sales tax is concerned the Act has specified the rationed articles for the purpose of exemption. In other words there can be very many items of rationed articles which may not be included for the purpose of exemption under section 13(5) of the Act. There is conscious specification of items for excluding and therefore the non-inclusion of sooji and maida have to be taken note of that they shall be counted for the purpose of registration. 3. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it will lead to discrimination between wholesale dealers and other distributors also has no substance. In so far as the sales tax is concerned they recognise the dealers of these four items only. There may be very many other rationed items and no exemption is afforded to those dealers. It is for the Government to take a policy and legislate on the exemption. There is no discrimination among those dealers dealing only these four items. There is no question of any discrimination in not granting the benefit to other rationed articles. 4. The petitioner's turnover exceeds Rs. 3 crores in the year 1996 and therefore he cannot be said to be affected by the direction to pay the registration fee based on the turnover of other rationed articles. For the above reasons no grounds are made out to interfere with the notices issued and the original petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. The petitioner's turnover exceeds Rs. 3 crores in the year 1996 and therefore he cannot be said to be affected by the direction to pay the registration fee based on the turnover of other rationed articles. For the above reasons no grounds are made out to interfere with the notices issued and the original petition is accordingly dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4749 of 1999 in O.P. No. 2797 of 1999-G dismissed. Petition dismissed.