Policy-based fiscal concession for women caterers upheld; court refused to expand the benefit beyond the specified class.

A special composition benefit for women caterers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a policy-based concession confined to a limited class of dealers, and the Article 14 challenge failed because a targeted preference is not unconstitutional merely for not extending to all dealers. The court also refused to read the expression "woman" as including a partnership firm of two women partners, holding that such an interpretation would unlawfully enlarge a special fiscal benefit beyond the legislative choice. The impugned notice was left undisturbed, subject to the petitioner's liberty to raise objections before the authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the special composition provision for women caterers under section 17(4)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the expression "woman" in the provision could be construed to include "women" so as to extend the benefit to a partnership firm consisting of two women partners.

Issue (i): whether the special composition provision for women caterers under section 17(4)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision was treated as a special measure confined to a limited class of dealers and designed to extend a benefit under the Government policy. A special concession or preference of this kind does not amount to hostile discrimination merely because it is not made available to all dealers. The equality challenge therefore had to be tested in the context of a policy-based classification made for a specific beneficiary class.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 14 was rejected and the provision was held not to be unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): whether the expression "woman" in the provision could be construed to include "women" so as to extend the benefit to a partnership firm consisting of two women partners.

Analysis: The benefit had been confined by the legislative and policy choice to a woman dealer, and the Court declined to enlarge that class by interpretation. The construction suggested by the petitioner would have altered the scope of the special benefit and would have amounted to judicially rewriting a policy provision. The notice issued under section 25-A was not interfered with, though liberty was reserved to submit objections in response to the notice.

Conclusion: The expression "woman" was not held to include "women", and the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed benefit.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the merits of the constitutional and interpretative challenges, and the impugned notice was left undisturbed, subject to the petitioner's liberty to respond before the authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not enlarge the scope of a special policy-based fiscal concession by interpretation, and a targeted preference for a specified class is not invalid under Article 14 merely because it benefits only that class.

---