Exemption notifications must be read strictly; footwear sales by importers fell outside the exemption and no Article 304(a) breach arose.

An exemption notification for hand-made footwear applied only when the goods were sold by the manufacturer or a family member within the State, at the specified low price, and the conditions could not be expanded to cover an importer's sale of goods purchased outside the State. The Court held that the respondent, as an importer selling in the State, could not claim the exemption. It further held that the notification did not offend Article 304(a) because the exemption operated uniformly on the relevant class of goods and sales, and any burden on out-of-State traders arose from the local sale point rather than unequal treatment. The assessment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption notification dated 28 January 1956 exempted only sales by the manufacturer or a member of his family within the State, or also covered sales by an importer of footwear purchased outside the State; (ii) whether the notification created discrimination prohibited by Article 304(a) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption notification dated 28 January 1956 exempted only sales by the manufacturer or a member of his family within the State, or also covered sales by an importer of footwear purchased outside the State.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption only if three conditions were satisfied: the goods were hand-made and not machine-made, the sale price did not exceed Rs. 12-8-0, and the sale was by the manufacturer or a member of his family. Read with the earlier notification fixing the taxable event as the sale by the importer or manufacturer in the State, the exemption could apply only to the sale that was itself taxable in the State. The reference to sale by the manufacturer or his family could not be expanded to include an outside-State sale to an importer, because that would delete one of the express conditions of the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available to the respondent as an importer selling the goods in the State; the High Court's interpretation was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the exemption notification created discrimination prohibited by Article 304(a) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The conditions of the exemption applied alike to footwear manufactured in the State and footwear imported from outside. The notification was designed to benefit small manufacturers of hand-made footwear of low value, and the distinction drawn was based on the nature of the goods and the manner of sale, not on the place of origin. The alleged hardship to an out-of-State manufacturer or importer was only a matter of convenience and did not amount to constitutional discrimination. Even if the exemption notification were invalid, the underlying taxing notification fixing the point of sale would remain effective.

Conclusion: The notification did not contravene Article 304(a) and was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to exemption, and the assessment restored by the appeal stood sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed according to its express conditions, and a constitutional challenge based on discrimination fails where the exemption operates uniformly on the relevant class and any burden arises only from the incident of local sale rather than from unequal treatment.

---