TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act") exempting the purchase of firewood and clay by manufacturers of tiles for use in the manufacture of tiles within the State from the levy of tax under section 5A of the Act. Another notification, exhibit P3, was issued on March 31, 1979 by which the purchase of firewood and clay by manufacturers of country bricks for use in their manufacture of country bricks by manual labour was exempted from payment of tax, provided the turnover of the manufacturer did not exceed Rs. 20,000 in a year. Another notification, exhibit P2, was issued on the same day March 31, 1979, exempting country bricks sold by manufacturers of country bricks whose total turnover did not exceed Rs. 20,000 a year from levy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. This was reiterated in the second case of Anant Mills AIR 1975 SC 1234. The third case referred to was one in which the distinction made in Tamil Nadu between arishtams and asavas on one side and medicinal preparations on the other for the purpose of sales tax was struck down as violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that arishtams and asavas are medicinal preparations, and even though they have a high alcohol content, so long as they continue to be identified as medicinal preparations, they must be treated, for the purpose of the sales tax law, in like manner as medicinal preparations generally including those containing a lower percentage of alcohol. Thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try bricks are concerned, while granting them the benefit of exemption under exhibits P2 and P3. 5.. Though the point raised is one of discrimination and violation of article 14 of the Constitution, and the writ petition was filed as early as on March 17, 1989, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter-affidavit explaining the classification which they have made between country bricks manufacturing units and wire-cut bricks manufacturing units. But I do not find any reason to brand the two notifications as discriminatory merely because of the laxity on the part of the respondents in filing an affidavit explaining the classification. 6.. The exemption under exhibits P2 and P3 is only in favour of manufacturers of country bricks w....