Judgment : The petitioners are dealers in cycle and cycle parts. Bicycles, tricycles and cycle rickshaws and specified parts are brought under 4% tax under Entry 13 of III Schedule of the KVAT Act. During inspection of the business premises by the audit team, it was noticed that all items were accounted by the petitioners at 4% tax. The assessing officer was of the view that cycle parts such as seat cover, dynamo, bell, carrier, cycle stand, handle bar, etc., which are not covered by Entry 13 of III Schedule, are assessable at 12.5% under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act. Since petitioners have not shown any turnover of those items separately, the assessing officer estimated the turnover of those cycle parts, which are not covered by Entry 13(3) of III Schedule and assessed the same at 12.5%. These assessments are and assessed the same at 12.5%. These assessments are challenged on the ground that the provisions of KVAT Act authorizing levy of sales tax on parts of bicycles not covered under Entry 13(3) at 12.5% are discriminatory and against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Petitioners have cited the decision of Supreme Court in Arya Vaidhya Pharmacy and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1989(73) STC 346, Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association and others vs. state of Kerala and others (AIR 1990 SC 913) and State of UP and others Vs. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corporation Limited reported in 2007(7) VST 535 in support of their contention that discriminatory legislation is liable to be declared unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, Government pleader referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another vs. M/s Hansa Corporation (1980(4) SCC 697 wherein Supreme Court held that the legislature has wide discretion in regard to levy of tax including fixation of rate of tax. However, Government pleader referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another vs. M/s Hansa Corporation (1980(4) SCC 697 wherein Supreme Court held that the legislature has wide discretion in regard to levy of tax including fixation of rate of tax. Government pleader also relied on the decisions reported in ELEL Hotels and Investments Ltd, and another vs. Union of India (74 STC 146), Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India and other vs. Union of India and others (74 STC 102) and R.K. Garg vs. Union of India and others (133 ITR 239) and contented that legislature enjoys wide discretion in regard to levy of tax including fixation of rate of tax on various commodities. 4. On going through Entry 13 of Schedule III of the KVAT Act, I find parts of bicycles, tricycles and cycle rickshaws covered by Sub Entry 3 are only bicycle rims, bicycle spokes, bicycle hubs, bicycle free wheels, bicycle saddles, bicycle chain and bicycle wheels. The usual entry to include other parts namely, “other”, is absent in Entry 13(3) of III Schedule. This obviously means that the legislature did not intend to cover other cycle parts in the said entry. Therefore, all cycle parts are not covered under Entry 13 (3) of III Schedule. In fact, bicycle has ever so many other parts such as head lamp, fork, pedal, chain-cover, brake etc. the contention of the petitioner that these items are not different from the other items enumerated in Entry 13(3) has some force. It is not known on what basis a classification of this nature is made. I doubt whether the items taxed by the assessing officer at the higher rate of 12.5% under Section 6(1) (d) are really intended to be taxed by the legislature at the said rate more so because those items are not specifically included in notification, SRO 82/06. The Government Pleader, I feel the matter requires to be considered by the Government and if they feel that higher rate of tax on some cycle parts are not intended, amendment has to be carried out. However, I do not find any discrimination in the levy of higher rate of tax on some parts while levying lower rate for other specified parts of the bicycle. There may be nothing wrong in charging higher rate on dynamo, headlight, seat cover etc. However, I do not find any discrimination in the levy of higher rate of tax on some parts while levying lower rate for other specified parts of the bicycle. There may be nothing wrong in charging higher rate on dynamo, headlight, seat cover etc. however, items getting worn out by use and requiring replacements periodically, may deserve any case, it is for the Government and legislature to consider classification on tax if, required. In any case, the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioners do not offer sufficient justification to interfere with the provisions. The assessing officer, in my view has made assessments in accordance with the statute. However, since the items are not specified by the Government under notification issued under Section 6(1)(d), I feel Government should consider the matter. The original petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the Government to consider the matter in the light of the observation made above. So far as the estimate of turnover at higher rate is concerned, if the petitioners have any grievance that the orders are adverse to them, after the Government reconsiders the matter, they are fee to file appeals against the impugned orders on this issue.