Laches and statutory classification govern a challenge to tax notices and denial of registration fee exemption.

A delayed challenge to tax notices may be rejected on laches where the writ petition is filed after an inordinate, unexplained lapse of time. The commentary also states that the registration fee exemption under section 13(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is confined to the specified rationed articles, and authorised wholesale dealers in other rationed articles cannot extend that benefit to themselves. That statutory distinction was treated as a conscious legislative classification, so denial of the exemption was not discriminatory. On that basis, the notices demanding additional registration fee were upheld and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the notices was liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. (ii) Whether authorised wholesale dealers dealing in rationed articles other than the specified exempted items were entitled to exemption from registration fee under section 13(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and whether denial of such benefit was discriminatory.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the notices was liable to be rejected on the ground of laches.

Analysis: The notices were issued nearly three years before the original petition was filed. The delay was held to be inordinate, and the challenge was not considered acceptable after such unexplained lapse of time.

Conclusion: The challenge was barred by laches.

Issue (ii): Whether authorised wholesale dealers dealing in rationed articles other than the specified exempted items were entitled to exemption from registration fee under section 13(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and whether denial of such benefit was discriminatory.

Analysis: The exemption under section 13(5) was confined to the specified rationed articles. The exclusion of other rationed articles from the exemption was treated as a conscious legislative classification. The Court held that the distinction did not amount to discrimination, as the statutory benefit was available only to dealers of the specified items and the policy choice lay with the Government.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the claimed exemption, and no discriminatory treatment was established.

Final Conclusion: The notices requiring payment of additional registration fee were upheld and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delayed challenge may be rejected on laches, and a statutory exemption confined to specified goods cannot be extended to other goods absent a basis to treat the legislative classification as discriminatory.

---