Article 14 cannot compel repetition of a special tax exemption granted to another dealer; parity claim rejected.

A special sales tax exemption granted by a Government Order to a particular dealer did not create a general right for other dealers to claim the same relief. Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act enabled the Government to grant exemption or remission in appropriate cases, but it did not compel parity with a separate individual concession. The Article 14 challenge failed because equality cannot be used to repeat a benefit that was granted on a special factual basis, and Article 162 also afforded no relief in the absence of an executive order in favour of the petitioners. The requests for exemption, remission, refund, and penalty relief were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled, on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and Article 162 of the Constitution of India, to compel the State to extend to them the exemption or remission earlier granted by G.O. Ms. No. 115 dated 17 January 1972 and to refund or remit the tax and penalty paid by them.

Analysis: The exemption granted under the Government Order was found to be a specific relief extended to a particular dealer and not a general benefit automatically available to all similarly placed dealers. Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as enabling the Government to grant exemption or remission in appropriate cases, but not as creating a right in every dealer to claim parity with a separate individual exemption. The plea based on Article 14 failed because equality cannot be invoked to compel repetition of an alleged illegality or to insist that a concession granted in one case must be extended in all cases irrespective of law and the factual basis for the original grant. Article 162 also did not assist the petitioners because no corresponding executive order had been issued in their favour.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to claim exemption, remission, or refund on parity with the earlier Government Order, and the challenge to the refusal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The common challenge to the refusal letter and the connected requests for tax remission and refund failed, leaving the revenue authorities' stand undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 14 does not require the State to repeat a benefit granted in a special case, and equality cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or to compel extension of a discretionary exemption beyond its lawful basis.

---