JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This writ appeal comes up with an application seeking condonation of delay in its institution. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State Revenue on the subject matter of the writ appeal itself. 2. The appellant lost the writ petition on an issue as to whether this Court should find any unconstitutionality with Entry 55 in the First Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. That entry deals with exempted goods. As rightly noted by the learned single Judge, exemption is a matter within the policy making process of the Government concerned. The relevant entry says: “Products notified by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, at the point of sale by the manufacturing units approved by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board.” This means that the products should be one notified by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, is the authority to identify the products and the identity of the manufacturer will be with reference to the registration with the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. These dual conditions will have to be satisfied if one were to get exemption in terms of Entry 55 of Schedule I of the KVAT Act as it stands. We do not want to say anything finally on the merits of the contention that the registration with the Khadi and Village Industries Commission would be sufficient to have the benefit exempted to such establishments also. The Khadi and Village Industries Act, 1956 as amended by the amending Act of 1987 makes certain provisions. But, the question as to whether the benefit of exemption should also be extended to manufacturers who are not approved by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board is a matter entirely within the domain of legislative or subordinate legislative function of the State. This, as rightly noted by the learned single Judge, is not in the realm for judicial review: Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference with the decision of the learned single Judge. We clarify that if any application or request is or would be made by the petitioner/appellant before the Government or the authority concerned, that will be decided untrammelled by anything stated either in this judgment or in the judgment of the learned single Judge. We clarify that if any application or request is or would be made by the petitioner/appellant before the Government or the authority concerned, that will be decided untrammelled by anything stated either in this judgment or in the judgment of the learned single Judge. Subject to that, the application for condonation of delay and the writ appeal are dismissed as in limine.