Judgment :- Sivarajan, J. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioners in O.P.Nos.305/2000. 2774/2001 & 1180 of 2000 respectively are the appellants in the above writ appeals. The learned single Judge by a common judgment in a batch of writ petitions O.P.Nos.25907/99, 11405, 305, 1180, 27247 & 31253/2000, 29562, 2774, 16548 & 16591 of 2001 dismissed all the writ petitions. Writ appeals are seen filed only in three cases. Though the appellants in these three appeals are different since the issue raised is common in all these appeals they are being disposed of together by a common judgment. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The appellants are small scale industrial units engaged in the manufacture and sale of various products. They are also registered dealers under the act. 3. The Government of Kerala, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 10 of the Act, issued Notification S.R.O.No.1728 of 1993 making a reduction in the rate of tax payable under the Act on certain goods and by persons or units specified in the various schedules to the Notification. This notification has been subjected to various amendments by extending concessional rates of tax to different class of persons or units on sale of their products. One such notification was S.R.O.No.429 of 1995 by which a new item-item 8 was, inter alia, added in schedule IV stating that ‘small scale industrial units whose total turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs’ need pay only 4% tax on the sale of goods manufactured by them within the State. This notification was to be effective from 1.4.1995. Another notification S.R.O.No.585 of 1996 dated 29.7.1996 was issued again amending S.R.O.1728/93 whereby an Explanation was, inter alia, added to item No.8 in schedule IV below the entry in column 2 which states that “where the turnover of the unit exceeds the limit of Rs.50 lakhs, during the first year in which the turnover crosses the limit, the higher rate will be applied only on the turnover above Rs.50 lakhs. This Explanation was given retrospective operation with effect from 1.4.1995. 4. This Explanation was given retrospective operation with effect from 1.4.1995. 4. According to the appellants the Explanation to item 8 of the IVth schedule to S.R.O.No.1728/93 introduced by S.R.O.NO.586/96 with effect from 1.4.1995,i.e. the date on which the concessional rate of tax was extended to SSI units whose total turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs as per S.R.O.No.429/95 for the first time, which restricts the concessional rate of tax only for the first year in which the turnover exceeds Rs.50 lakhs is unreasonable, unworkable and arbitrary. Their case is that unless this benefit is extended to all the subsequent years also the appellants will not be able to avail the benefit even in respect of the turnover of Rs.50 lakhs which is granted under S.R.O.No.429/95 since they cannot predict at the beginning of the year as to whether the turnover will exceed Rs.50 lakhs by the close of the year. If they collect tax from their customers at the concessional rate and if ultimately the turnover exceeds Rs.50 lakhs they will have to pay tax at the higher rate on the entire turnover to their detriment. 5. The assessments of the appellants for the year 1996-97 were completed either under Section 19 of the Act or by way of original assessments denying the benefit of concessional rate under S.R.O.No.1728/93 as amended on the ground that their turnover exceeded Rs.50 lakhs in the previous year itself and therefore they are not entitled to the concessional rate of tax since their turnover for the year exceeded Rs.50 lakhs. The appellants, in the said circumstances, seek to quash that portion of S.R.O.No.429/95 and S.R.O.No.585/96 to the extent the said notification limit the turnover to Rs.50 lakhs for the purposes of giving reduced rate of tax to S.S.I. units. They also seek for mandamus directing the respondents not to levy higher rate of tax on SSI units which exceed the turnover limit of Rs.50 lakhs. There is yet another prayer for direction to the respondents not to assess demand or recover sales tax from the appellants on the products manufactured and sold by them at a rate more than 4% upto a turnover of Rs.50 lakhs till 31.3.1999 and also to revised the assessment orders already passed applying 4% tax. There is yet another prayer for direction to the respondents not to assess demand or recover sales tax from the appellants on the products manufactured and sold by them at a rate more than 4% upto a turnover of Rs.50 lakhs till 31.3.1999 and also to revised the assessment orders already passed applying 4% tax. The learned single Judge very elaborately considered the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and held that the validity of a notification issued under Section 10 of the Act cannot be tested on the basis of practical difficulties and observed thus: “In this case in order to avail the benefit on concessional rate no condition is imposed by the Government to SSI units which can be divided into two classes; one with turnover below rupees fifty lakhs and the other with turnover above rupees fifty lakhs. The Government is absolutely right in making such a classification which is based on reasonable basis between small and large industries. While the benefit of concessional rate is available to relatively small industries, the same is denied to SSI units with large turnover (above rupees fifty lakhs). However, it is seen that the notification under challenge, SRO 585/96 has in fact extended the benefit to SSI units with turnover above rupees fifty lakhs for the first year when they can avail the concessional rate upto rupees fifty lakhs even when the turnover in that year crosses rupees fifty lakhs.� 6. With reference to arguments made on the basis of the explanatory note appended to S.R.O.No.585/96 and the speech made by the Minister regarding the scope of the amendment the learned single judge observed as follows: “The notification extracted above is free from doubt and the explanation makes it clear that the concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent on the first rupees fifty lakhs is available to SSI units with turnover of rupees fifty lakhs only for the first year in which the turnover crosses rupees fifty lakhs. When the notification is very clear, I do not find any justification to go into the other aids of construction such as Explanatory note, or Minister’s speech, which cannot control the language of the notification.� 7. When the notification is very clear, I do not find any justification to go into the other aids of construction such as Explanatory note, or Minister’s speech, which cannot control the language of the notification.� 7. After meeting the practical difficulties pointed out by the counsel in the application of the notification the learned single Judge held thus: “Therefore I do not think any of the practical difficulties highlighted by the petitioners will affect the validity of the notification, which is a beneficial notification granted to SSI units. In fact the notification challenged by the petitioners is only the second one, S.R.O.585/96, which has introduced explanation to first notification, S.R.O.429/95. Under the first notification, there was no concessional rate on the first rupees fifty lakhs for the SSI units in any year. In other words, if the turnover exceeds rupees fifty lakhs, every SSI unit ought to pay tax at the higher rate applicable to the goods for every year. In the impugned explanation, there is benefit conferred on the SSI units with turnover of above rupees fifty lakhs to avail the benefit in the first year. Then the need pay tax only at four per cent on the first rupees fifty lakhs turnover and higher rate of tax only on the balance turnover. I do not find the category of SSI units which are otherwise ineligible for concessional rate of four per cent under the main notification have questioned the explanation to the notification which only confers a benefit on them at least for one year. Therefore I see no ground to invalidate the explanation to the notification.� According to the counsel for the appellants the learned single judge was satisfied about the practical difficulties experienced by the appellants and therefore the notification should have been invalidated. Further, the limit of Rs.50 lakhs fixed for availing the benefit of concessional rate in the notification, according to the counsel is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Having regard to the object of the notification, viz; to uplift the SSI units, according to the counsel, the benefit should have been extended to all small scale industrial units without any limit. 8. As observed by the learned single Judge the notification is very clear. Having regard to the object of the notification, viz; to uplift the SSI units, according to the counsel, the benefit should have been extended to all small scale industrial units without any limit. 8. As observed by the learned single Judge the notification is very clear. The benefit of concessional rate of tax is made available only to such of the small scale industrial units whose total turnover of a year does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. However, for the first year of crossing the limit of Rs.50 lakhs the Government thought that the benefit should not be denied, for it may not have been in the contemplation of the units that their turnover may exceed Rs.50 lakhs and the SSI units might have collected tax only at the concessional rate of 4%. This may be a reason which prompted the Government to issue S.R.O.No.585/1996 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1995 which is to the advantage of the S.S.I. Units. But, once the turnover exceeds Rs.50 lakhs in a year nothing prevents the SSI units from collecting tax from the next year onwards at the higher rate. All SSI units whose total turnover exceeded Rs.50 lakhs could avail the benefit of the explanation without any distinction. 9. The appellants, by challenging the notifications, granting concessional rate of tax to small scale industrial units whose turnover does not exceed 50 lakhs, are virtually questioning the wisdom or policy of the Government in the matter of grant of exemption or reduction in the rate of tax in respect of the tax payable under the Act. 10. No doubt an exemption notification has also to pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. The question as to whether a classification of dealers on the basis of their respective turnover for the purpose of graded imposition of tax is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.Koder v. State of Kerala (AIR 1974 SC 2272). In that case the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provided for levy of additional sales tax in the case of a dealer whose total turnover for a year exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. In that case the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provided for levy of additional sales tax in the case of a dealer whose total turnover for a year exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. The levy was challenged on the ground that the aforesaid provisions impose different rates of tax upon different dealers depending on their turnover which in effect means that the rate of tax on the sale of goods would vary with the volume of the turnover of a dealer and are therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the classification of dealers on the basis of their respective turnover for the purpose of graded imposition so long as it is based on differential criteria relevant to the legislative object to be achieved is not unconstitutional. The court also noted that classification depending upon the quantum of turnover for the purpose of exemption from tax has been upheld in several decided cases and that by parity of reasoning it can be said that a legislative classification making the burden of tax heavier in proportion to the increase in turnover would be reasonable. This was on the principle that the little man, by reason of inferior capacity to pay, should bear a lighter load of taxes relatively as well as absolutely, than is borne by the big one. It was further observed as follows: “As we said, a large dealer occupies a position of economic superiority by reason of his volume of business and to make the tax heavier on him both absolutely and relatively is not arbitrary discrimination but an attempt to proportion the payment to capacity to pay and thus arrive in the end at a more genuine equality. The capacity of a dealer, in particular circumstances, to pay tax is not an irrelevant factor in fixing the rate of tax and one index of capacity is the quantum of turnover. The argument that while a dealer beyond certain limit is obliged to pay higher tax, when others bear a less tax, and it is consequently discriminatory, really misses the point namely that the former kind of dealers are in a position of economic superiority by reason of their volume of business and form a class by themselves. They cannot be treated as on par with comparactively small dealers. They cannot be treated as on par with comparactively small dealers. An attempt to proportion the payment to capacity to pay and thus bring about a real and factual equality cannot be ruled out as irrelevant in levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods. The object of a tax is not only to raise revenue but also to regulate the economic life of the society.� The said decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Ms.Hoechst pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1019) on a similar challenge. 11. Again the Supreme Court in I.T.O. v. K.N.Takim Roy Rybai (AIR 1976 SC 670) held as follows: “The mere fact that a tax fails more heavily on some in the same category, is not by itself a ground to render the law invalid. It is only when within the range of its selection, the law operates unequally and cannot be justified on the basis of a valid classification that there would be a violation of Article 14.� 12. Again a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 178 ITR 97) in the context of an objection to classification in a taxing statute held thus:- “The State, in the exercise of its Governmental power has of necessity to make laws operating differently in relation to different groups or class of persons to attain certain ends and must therefore, possess the power to distinguish and classify persons or things. It is also recognized that no precise or set formulae or doctrinaire tests or precise scientific principles of exclusion or inclusion are to be applied. The test could only be one of palpable arbitrariness applied in the context of the felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience. Classifications based on differences in the value or articles or the economic superiority of the persons of incidence are well recognised. A reasonable classification is one which includes all who are similarly situated and none who are not. In order to ascertain whether persons are similarly placed, one must look beyond the classification and to the purposes of the law.� 13. A reasonable classification is one which includes all who are similarly situated and none who are not. In order to ascertain whether persons are similarly placed, one must look beyond the classification and to the purposes of the law.� 13. Again the Supreme Court in Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Kerala (AIR 1990 SC 913) considered a similar challenge to the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act imposing sales tax under entry 57 of the first schedule to the Act which levied a sales tax on cooked food including beverages not falling in any entry in the fifth schedule in bar attached hotels or restaurants and/or hotels above the grade of two stars and also amending Entry 57 brought in by the Kerala Finance Act, 1988 which further provided that cooked food including beverages not falling under Entry 76A of the I Schedule sold or served in, bar attached hotels and or restaurants the turnover in respect of which is Rs.20 lakhs and above and bar attached hotels and or restaurants. In other words, after the said amendment hotels and restaurants with turnover of Rs.20 lakhs and above and bar attached hotels are made liable to pay sales tax on cooked food including beverages. The Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions observed thus. “Thus, it is clear that the test applicable for striking down a taxing provision on this ground is one of palpable arbitrariness applied in the context of the felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience, and the courts should not interfere with the legislative wisdom of making the classification unless the classification is found to be invalid by this test.� The Supreme Court further observed as follows: “The trend of the up-to-date decisions of this Court, already noticed does indicate that a classification made whereby the tax net covers only the sale of costlier cooked food in the posh eating houses while exempting the cooked food sold in the modest eating houses at lesser prices, thereby confining the burden to the more affluent in the society, satisfies the requirements of a valid classification. Moreover, the classification so made cannot be termed as arbitrary, being within the limits upto which the legislatures is given a free hand for making classification in a taxing statute.� It was further observed that in order to tax something it is not necessary to tax everything and so long as those within the tax net can be legitimately classified together indicating an intelligible differentia vis-à -vis those left out and the classification so made bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the classification is clearly permissible. 14. The Supreme Court in Khadi and Village Soap Industries Association v. State of Haryana (AIR 1994 SC 2479) was concerned with the challenge to a notification issued by the State of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 13 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 granting exemption from payment of sales tax to the Kadhi Ashram and its centralized units functioning within the State of Haryana but limiting the exemption to the other co-operative societies and persons to their turnover not exceeding rupees five lakhs in a year. The Supreme Court relying on the decision in Kerala Hotel & Restaurant Assn.’s case discussed above held that a classification made on the basis of turnover apart from the other distinguishing features of Khadi Ashram and its units justifies putting them in a distinct class for the grant of total exemption from payment of sales tax particularly when there is no challenge by the other khadi units. It is unnecessary to multiply with decisions, for it is well settled position that the Legislature has got the power to classify persons based on the turnover for levy of sales tax. 15. The only question therefore to be considered is as to whether there is any justification for limiting the benefit of concessional rate of tax to small scale industrial units whose turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs in a year. In this context it is relevant to note that small scale industrial units registered with the Industries Department after 1.4.1979 are granted exemption from payment of sales tax on the turnover of goods manufactured and sold by them for a period of 5 years initially as per S.R.O.No.968/80 and later for a period of 7 years as per S.R.O.No.1729/93. In this context it is relevant to note that small scale industrial units registered with the Industries Department after 1.4.1979 are granted exemption from payment of sales tax on the turnover of goods manufactured and sold by them for a period of 5 years initially as per S.R.O.No.968/80 and later for a period of 7 years as per S.R.O.No.1729/93. Of course the exemption is limited to 90% of the cumulative investment in plant and machinery and on production of an eligibility certificate obtained form the authority specified in the said notifications. It must be noted that Notifications S.R.O.No.1728/93 and S.R.O.No.1729/93 were issued on the same date, ie. on 3.11.1993 and the concessional rate of tax granted as per S.R.O.No.1728/93 was originally not extended to small scale industrial units covered by S.R.O.No.1729/93. This is for the obvious reason that the small scale industrial units have already been granted exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of 7 years under S.R.O.No.1729/93. This was for the purpose of encouraging small scale industrial units to set up new industries in the State of Kerala and to help them in the infancy stage. However, the Government thought that some more incentive must be given to those small scale industrial units whose total turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs and it is for that purpose the Government in their wisdom and as a matter of policy had issued notification S.R.O.No.429/95 with effect from 1.4.1995 granting a concessional rate of tax on the sale of their products at 4%. By the grant of the said benefits those small scale industrial units whose total turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs can avail the benefit of exemption from tax under S.R.O.No.1729/93 for a larger period. This is for the reason that exemption under the notification S.R.O.No.1729/93 though it is for a period of 7 years the exemption ceases by the exhaustion of the amount specified in the eligibility certificate. The Government also thought that this benefit granted to small scale industrial units, whose turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs should not suffer detriment in the eventuality of the total turnover exceeds Rs.50 lakhs in the first year. The Government also thought that this benefit granted to small scale industrial units, whose turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs should not suffer detriment in the eventuality of the total turnover exceeds Rs.50 lakhs in the first year. It is for the said purpose an explanation was added to item No.8 in the IVth Schedule to S.R.O.No.1728/93 to the effect that if the total turnover exceeds Rs.50 lakhs in any year for the first time the concessional rate will be granted for that year upto the turnover of Rs.50 lakhs and only for remaining turnover the tax at the higher rate will be levied. 16. We are of the view that there is a clear nexus in fixing the limit of Rs.50 lakhs in the case of small scale industrial units for availing the benefit of concessional rate provided under the notification, for the intention of the Government in issuing the said notification is only to help those small scale industrial units whose turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. As held by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed above a classification based on the turnover of a dealer is clearly permissible and the same is not liable to be challenged as violative article 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, the notifications S.R.O.No.429/95 and S.R.O.No.585/96 cannot in any way be characterized as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. The practical difficulties pointed out by the appellants in the matter of complying with the notifications for availing the concessional rate of tax cannot in any way alter the situation. If the small scale industrial units want to avail the benefit granted under the aforesaid two notifications they have to strictly comply with the terms of the said notifications as held by this court in K.V.Gangadharan v. Addl.Sales Tax Officer (1993 KLJ 432). If the appellants are unable to comply with the same they are free to collect tax at the higher rate provided the total turnover of the previous year is likely to exceed Rs.50 lakhs. The appellants in fact want the explanation introduced by S.R.O.No.585/96 to be continued without limiting it to the first year in which the turnover crosses the limit of Rs.50 lakhs. The appellants in fact want the explanation introduced by S.R.O.No.585/96 to be continued without limiting it to the first year in which the turnover crosses the limit of Rs.50 lakhs. The grant of exemption under Section 10 of the Act is a matter exclusively within the province of the Government and the courts cannot direct the Government to grant any exemption to the appellants because, as otherwise it will cause practical difficulties to them. The Government have advisedly limited the benefit of concessional rate of tax under the notifications only to small scale industrial units whose turnover does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. The classification being reasonable it will not be open to this Court to issue any directions as sought for by the appellants to extend the benefit of the explanation inserted by S.R.O.No.585/96 for all the years to come. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. There is no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.