l Appeals Nos 1752 to 1769 of 1970 From the Judgment and Order dated the 24th April 1970 of the Mardas High Court in Writ Petitions Nos 239 346 999 1000 1007 1030 1071 1101 1102 1223 1242 1270 1271 1724 1725 1748 2640 and 3252 of 1969
Y section Chitle V M Ganpule K R Choudhury and K Rajendra Choudhury for the appellants
L N Sinha Solicitor General of India section P Nayar and M N Shroff for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
The core of the contention urged by the appellants in these various appeals filed by certificate under article 1331a  c of the Constitution is that the excise duty on matches sought to be levied on these medium sized manufacturers of Shivakashi wears the mask of equality but in its true face bears the marks of unequal justice violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India
Shri Chitale learned counsel for the appellants has focused his arguments on one grievance only and we think with good reason that the discriminatory fiscal treatment of his clients is unconstitutional the vice being treatment of dissimilar categories similarly
To compress his whole argument in a single sentence it is that the appellants small manufacturers of matches have been subjected by the impugned notification to excise duty at the same onerus rate as has been applied to larger producers wilfully indifferent to a historically well recognised classification between the smaller and the larger group of match manufacturers and the injury sustained flows from this failure to classify and deal differentially with sets of producers who are unequal in their economic capabilities in the matter of production and marketing a sort of traumatic egality
In brief equal treatment of unequal groups may spell invisible yet substantial discrimination with consequences of unconstitutionality
That dissimilar things Should not be treated similarly in the name of equal justice is of Aristotelian vintage and has been by implication enshrined in our Constitution
The facts which unfold the case of the appellants may now be set out
The match industry in India has grown over the decades and Shivakashi occupies an important place in the production geography of matches
From the point of view of manufacturing techniques the safety match industry in our country comprises two distinct categories the mechanised sector occupied by a few big whales and the non 123 mechanised sector comprising varying sizes of production units ranging from the small fry organised on a cottage industry basis to considerable producers who have developed manufacturing and marketing muscles sufficient to compete with the power using big four the WIMCO the AMCO the ESAVI and the Pioneer
The Tariff commission Report on this industry has stated Unlike units in the mechanised sector which have powerdriven equipment for carrying out all the important operations including manufacture of splints and veneers frame filling dipping box making etc
 those in categories B  and C  follow almost identical manufacturing process obtaining their splints and veneers from outside suppliers and getting such important
operations as box making and frame filling done by outside domestic labour on piece rate basis
Only such of the processes as dipping box filling banderolling and packing which under Excise or Explosive Act regulations cannot be entrusted to outside labour are carried out in the factory sheds of the units and the workers employed for these also are mostly paid on piece rate basis
All the operations whether undertaken in the factory premises or passed on to outside piece work labour to be carried out in the homes of the latter conjointly with other members of the family are done by manual process
The same system is followed by D  category units as well except those sponsored by K  V 1
C some of which manufacture their own splints and veneers Classified on the basis of quantity turn out and other germane factors a fourfold categorisation into A  B  C  and D  was extent in the industry roughly corresponding to the techniques of production and the use of power adopted by each
The Tariff Commission explained this aspect and reported on the operation of the differential excise levy system on production and trade practices
Counsel for the appellants has rested his case of discrimination by subversive equality or rather non discrimination where a deserving differentiation is the desideratum on the findings of the Tariff Commission report
We might as well give copious but relevant excerpts from it to discern the foundation
of the argument
The Report runs on to state As indicated in Appendix 11 according to the excise tariff classification units in the match industry now stand grouped into four classes namely X B  C and D  not on any tech nological differentiation but on the basis of output A  class comprising factories whose annual output exceeds 4000 million match sticks B  class comprising factories whose annual output exceeds 500 million match sticks but does not exceed 4000 million match sticks C  class comprising factories whose annual output exceeds 50 million match sticks but does not exceed 500 million match sticks and D  class comprising factories whose arm all output does not exceed 50 million match sticks
According to this classification the factories belonging to WIMCO AMCO and ESAVI fall under category A the rest comprising the units 124 in the non mechanised sector fall under the other three categories namely B  C  and D        selling system iv Small producers
The system of selling adopted by these manufacturers varied according to their status and financial resources
The system almost universally followed by such producers is to make outright sales without any discount or commission to wholesalers both out station and local
The bigger among such producers belonging to category B  are reported in some case s to sell as well through dealers and sole selling agents
Many of them have also got their own depots and regular stockists in a limited number of out station centres
As regards C  and B  class producers the system of sales covert the following variants according to facilities available to them  i outright sales to wholesale merchants local or out station ii sales through joints schemes of depots which stock different brands from several producers iii sales by sending goods in their own vans in bulk to distributors and dealers in nearby states and iv sales through their own salesman who deliver goods in local markets on the shopkeepers on bicycles a special feature of D  class units
From the replies received by us from units in the small scale sector it would appear that those in category B  situated in the ShivakasiSatturKovilpatti area have over some years in the past established contacts and developed a fairly wide selling system enabling them to cater to the markets in distant States including West Benga l UP Delhi Gujarat and practically all the States in the South
The size of their operations has all along enabled them to undertake supply in wagon loads at the concessional rates which is an important consideration for developing distant markets to be served by rail transport Although they are not comparable to WIMCO in having a country wide distributive Organisation these units evinced till recently all the symptoms of a steady and healthy development some of them having reached the maximum limit 4000 million sticks of Category D  with a reputation for their brands in far off markets
They had the resources to support this progressive development and a few of them have represented that with an improvement of the climate of the trade which has been completely vitiated by the slab system of excise duties see para graph 11 and given necessary facilities they would be able to reestablish the markets they had assiduously built up and even initiate a scheme of gradual mechanisation of important processes in their factories for the betterment of the quality of their products
In the present context it is worth taking note of the fact that the credit for an expanding market for matches produced in the non mechanised sector is attributable largely to the sales endeavours of factories which had grown to be B class units that had necessary resources for the purpose and were able the maintain quality
     125 In contrast to the B  class units the selling system of those in category C  betokens a position of serious weakness
Except the C  class units which have been brought into existence by fragmentation of bigger units and still operate under the protecting wing of the sponsor see paragraph 11 the new comers in this class who have no tradition functions mostly with meagre financial resources and have no comparable advantage
Unable to sell their output in wagon loads they are compelled to dispose of it to local financing cum trading agencies at rock bottom prices dictated by the latter for what has now come to be called consignments of assorted labels
This in effect involves a complete surrender by the C  class producers to the benefit of differential excise rebate allowed to them to the detriment of others as well
The low purchase prices of the goods enable such agencies to send consignments of mixed brands to distant places in wagon loads and find a market by of fering to the wholesalers there extremely competitive rates vis a vis the usual rates charged by B class units the retail selling prices being the same for both
Our examination of the problem of the small scale units in category C  indicates that basically their problem is not different from other small industries suffering similar exploitation by middlemen
As in other cases they can best be extricated from the grip of the middlemen by the establishment of suitable sales co operatives
We draw the attention of the State Governments to this problem for initiating necessary measures for the purpose particularly of the Government of Madras as the concentration of such units is in that State where the problem presents itself in the most acute form but offers favourable prospects for the establishment of several full fledged sales cooperatives with adequate membership     There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the effects have been quite widespread and recourse has been taken to fragmentation on a fairly extensive scale     The Sivakasi Chamber has stated as follows In the face of such unhealthy competition from C  factories and the disadvantages over A  the B  is unable to market its production resulting in heavy accumulation of stocks
It is now felt by B  class factories that there is no other salvation for them except to convert B  into C  class factories in benami names as few have since done
It may be pointed out that 16 long established B  factories have reduced themselves to C  class with effect from 1st April 1963 in this Division alone in addition to the numerous factories who have already converted from B to C As regards similar fragmentation of the larger units in category C  almost identical views have been expressed by the Tirunelevely Match Association representing 150 C  class match factoriesin the following words  In view of the vast difference of excise duty between
1st and 3rd slab of excise duty in C Class there is a tendency and practice among the manufacturers to work in the first slab only and to stop therewith
In this way starting of small new units with the motive to enjoy rebate in the first slab 126 of excise duty has become common and this has clearly resulted in loss of revenue as well as working of units in less than the permitted Capacity
It has been brought to our
notice that the situation has deteriorated to such an extent as a result of the slab system that some erstwhile B  units have suspended their manufacturing activities altogether and instead found it more profitable to patronise a number of newly established C  class units
Their taking over the products of the latter in their new role as a trading cum financing agency has been facilitated by their established market connections and resourcefulness
Instances of B  category units owned by individual proprietors downgrading themselves into category C  and having a number of C  class units set up in the name of near relations have also been noticed by us in the course of our visits to factories in the SivakasiSattur Kovilpatti area
The allegations about extensive fragmentation were not denied by anybody at the public inquiry
      The volume of evidence both direct and indirect that we have received in this connection fully testifies to the fact that large scale fragmentation of B  and C  class units has taken place directly as a result of the slab system all motivated by the attraction offered by the large duty differential of 65 np for the lowest slab rate under category C 
     From the evidence received by us B and C class units have to offer their match boxes generally at a discount of Rs 2 to Rs 3 per bundle of 5 gross boxes ie at about 40 to 60 nP per gross less than the price charged by WIMCO
While the quality of matches produced by B  class manufacturers has the reputation of being generally good and comparable to WIMCO s matches the C  class units do not have such reputation in the market
The C  class manufacturers are handicapped by a further disadvantage on account of the lower scale of their produc tion inasmuch as they cannot usually offer a wagon load of matches at a time for despatch to the upcountry markets for sale and have generally to bear the central sales tax
After carefully considering all aspects of the case including estimates of costs of the manufacturers we are of opinion that a differential of 20 nP in the rates of excise duty per gross of match boxes between A  and B  class units and a differential of 30 nP between B  and C  class manufacturers would be quite adequate to safeguard their respective interests
On similar considerations a differential of 35 nP between C  and D  class units would also be justified
For reasons stated in paragraph 11 and as stressed therein we are definitely against continuance of the slabs introduced in classes A  B  and C  carrying dif ferential rates of excise duty which have entailed serious repressions on the entire industry
We therefore recommend the following scales of excise duty to be levied for the four classes respectively  For A  class  
Rs 460 per gross boxes For B  class  
Rs440 per gross boxes For C  class   Rs410 per gross boxes For D  class  
Rs375 per gross boxes 127 The Tariff Commission recommended the abolition of sub classification for the purposes of excise duty and suggested separate scales of excise duty to be levied for the four classes of units namely A  B   C  and D 
Based on these recommendations the slab system of excise duty was abandoned by Government and the category wise rate was adopted
The impact on production of the differential duty scheme was a process of splintering of the B  group to inhale the advantages offered to the C  group resulting in a reduction in total production thanks to the thinning tendency in the B  group
Indeed the fiscal misdirection by showing concessional rates to the C  category as against B  category generated pseudo C  category producers from out of the erstwhile B  category so that the bona fide small scale manufacturers falling in the C  category were flooded out
Moreover the genuine C  category manufacturers were exploited by the middlemen who snapped up the margin of tax concession for themselves defeating the object of concessional duty for the small producer
This dilemma induced Government to revise its fiscal thinking and led to the impugned notification which withdrew the tax concession to the C  category and equated it with the B  category
Section 3 of the Central Excise and salt Act 1944 empowers the levy and collection of duties on goods produced or manufactured in the State the rate being set forth in the First schedule to the Act
Item 38 in the First Schedule relates to matches
Section 37 contains the rulemaking power and section 371 confers power on the Central Government by rules to exempt any goods from the whole or any part of the duty imposed by the Act
Under this power the Central Government issued a notification adopting a classification approach for extending concessional rates
Originally a broad classification was made as between matches manufactured by use of machinery and those by other means
Among the second category a sub classification was made as B  C  and ID  for the purposes of concessional rates
In 1966 a uniform leavy of Rs 415 per gross of match boxes was made doing away with B  to ID  classes
In 1967 this position was revised by notification No 162 of 1967 which is challenged before us
It reads In exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule 1 of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1955 and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Department of Rev enue and Insurance No 11567 Central Excise dated the 8th June 1967 the Central Government hereby exempts matches specified in column 2 of the Table below falling under Item No 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 1 of 1944 and cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the said table 128 TABLE Category Description of matches Rate Rs per gross of boxes 50 mat ches each 1
Matches in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power  4 60 2
Matches in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power  4 30
Provided that 1 Matches referred to in category 2 and cleared for home consumption during the financial year from a factory from which the total clearance of matches during that year is not as per declaration made by the manufacturer under this notification  estimated to exceed 75 million matches shall be allowed to be cleared at the rate of Rs 375 per gross of boxes 5O matches each upto 75 million matches and the quantity of matches if any cleared in excess and upto 100 million matches shall be allowed to be cleared at the rate of Rs 430 per gross of boxes of 50 matches each and if the clearance in such factory exceeds 100 million matches during the financial year the manufacturer shall be required to pay at the rate of Rs 4 30 per gross of boxes of 50 matches each on the entire quantity cleared during the financial year   The upshot of this system of duty is that B  and C  categories of old will now be treated equally and the grievance of the petitioners who are C  category manufacturers is that clubbing them together with the far stronger B  type manufacturers is virtually condemning them to gradual extinction
Treating unequals as equals and compelling both to bear equal burdens is to show the C  type manufacturers the way out
It is urged that the test of capacity of each group in the industry to bear the levy recognised in the past and approved in the Tariff Commission Report is given the go bye now
The contention in reply by the State is that at present the classification of the manufacturers is based on the use of power which in turn has a rational relation to the techniques and processes of production and their ability to bear the burden of the levy
It is further argued that the Government did give effect to the recommendations of the Tariff Commission regarding the four fold classification but finding certain evils developing the Central Excise Re organisation Committee went into the subject and suggested methods to re orient the scale and scope of excise duty
This Committee s report led to the current noti fication and the dichotomy between mechanised and non mechanised industry proceeds on a rational differentia which has a substantial relation to the legislative end
There is no doubt that in the past among the non mechanised manufacturers of matches a further classification based on viability 129 had been made
It is also true that the financial resources the capacity to command a market on their own without depending on intermediaries etc marked off the B  category from the C  category
But then experience gathered subsequently disclosed certain evils which the State took note of and endeavoured to set right
Ulitmately the present notification was issued obliterating the distinction which gave a concessional edge to the C  group over the B  group
The learned counsel for the appellants persuasively pleaded that this unsocialistic step has left the small producers like his clients in the cold and virtually compelled them to retire from the industry
May be there is force in this grievance
Instead of protecting the tiny manufacturer from the injurious intermediary and inhibiting the larger pro ducer from resorting to the device of self division and other make believe tactics the State has resorted to a policy of equal levy from both which according to the counsel hits the poor and helps the better off
This is a criticism of legislative judgment not a ground of judicial review
We agree that bare equality of treatment regardless of the inequality of realities is neither justice nor homage to the constitutional principle
Anatole France s cynical statement comes to our mind in this context The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges to beg in the streets and to steal bread
 The forensic focus turns on unconstitutional non classification of the B  and C  categories and the vice of lugging all non mechanised Producers together into one mass
The Court is being invited to compel the legislative and executive wings to classify but we feel that from the judicial inspection tower the Court may only search for arbitrary and irrational classification and its obverse namely capricious uniformity of treatment where a crying dissimilarity exists in reality
Right at the threshold we must warn ourselves of the limitations of judicial power in this jurisdiction
Mr Justice Stone of the Supreme Court of the United States has delineated these limitations in United States vs Butler1 thus  The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness
One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes not with their wisdom
The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint the only check upon our exercise of power is our own sense of self restraint For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies not to the courts but to the bellot and to the processes of democratic government
 In short unconstitutionality and not unwisdom of a legislation is the narrow area of judicial review
In the present case unconstitu 1  Sup
Ct31280 L ed477 1936American Constitutional Law hird edn
by Tresolini and Shapiro
130 tionality is alleged as springing from
lugging together two dissimilar categories of match manufacturers into one compartment for like treatment
Certain principles which bear upon classification may be mentioned here
It is true that a State may classify persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and pass laws for the purpose of obtaining revenue or other objects
Every differentiation is not a discrimination
But classification can be sustained only if it is founded on pertinent and real differences as distinguished from irrelevent and artificial ones
The constitutional standard by which the sufficiency of the differentia which form a valid basis for classification may be measured has been repeatedly stated by the courts
If it rests on a difference which bears a fair and just relation to the object for which it is proposed it is constitutional
To put it differently the means must have nexus with the ends
Even So a large latitude is allowed to the State for classification upon a reasonable basis and what is reasonable is a question of practical details and a variety of factors which the court will be reluctant and perhaps ill equipped to investigate
In this imperfect world perfection even in grouping is an ambition hardly ever accomplished
In this contest we have to remember the relationship between the legislative and judicial departments of government in the determination of the validity of classification
Of course in the last analysis courts possess the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of the acts of the other branches whether a classification is based upon substantial differences or is arbitrary fanciful and consequently illegal At the same time the question of classification is primarily for legislative judgment and ordinarily does not become a judicial question
A power to classify being extremely broad and based on diverse considerations of executive pragmatism the judicature cannot rush in where even the legislature warily treads
All these operational restraints on judicial power must weigh more emphatically where the subject is taxation
One facet of the equal protection clause upheld by the Indian Courts and relevant to the present case is that while similar things must be treated similarly dissimilar things should not be treated similarly
There can be hostile discrimination while maintaining a facede of equality
Procrustean cruelty cannot be equated with guarantee of constitutional equality and we have to examine whether such is the lot of the appellants
This Court has in several rulings highlighted this sensitive under side of equal protection
Indeed the complaint of the petitioners is that by abolition of the difference in fiscal burden between categories B  and C  an insidious subversion of equal treatment has been effected
Another proposition which is equally settled is that merely because there is room for classification it does not follow that legislation without classification is always unconstitutional
The court cannot strike down a law because it has not made the classification which commends to the court as proper
Nor can the legislative power be said to have been unconstitutionally exercised because within the class a sub classification was reasonable but has not been made
131 It is well established that the modern State in exercising its sovereign power of taxation has to deal with complex factors relating to the objects to be taxed the quantum to be levied the conditions subject to which the levy has to be made the social and economic policies which the tax is designed to subserve and what not
In the famous words of Holmes J in Bain Peanut Co vs Pinson1  We must remember that the machinery of Government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints In the present case a pertinent principle of differentiation which is visibly linked to productive prowess has been adopted in the broad classification of power users and manual manufacturers
It is irrational to castigate this basis as unreal
Indeed the soundness of this distinction is not denied
The challenge is founded on the failure to miniclassify between large and small sections of manual match manufacturers
But ours is not to reason why that being a policy decision of Government dependent on pragmatic wisdom playing on imponderable forces at work
Our jurisdiction halts where the constitutional touchstone of a rational differentia having a just relation to the legislative and of revenue raising is satisfied
Gratuitous judicial advice on the socialistic direction of fiscal policy is de trop
We desist from that enterprise and leave the petitioners and men of his ilk to seek other democratic remedies in that behalf it being beyond our area normally to demolish the tax structure because micro classification among a large group has not been done by the State
Absolute justice to every producer is a self defeating adventure for any administration and genera I direction not minute classification is all that can be attempted
For these reasons we find ourselves in agreement with the High Court in its refusal to strike down the notification under section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944
Before concluding we may make a passing reference to the few decisions cited by appellants  counsel
In K T Moopil Nair vs State of Kerala2 Sinha CJ emphasized that article 14 may be violated even though the law may on the face be equal if in substance unequal things are treated equally
In State of Kerala vs Haji K Haji Kutty Nahia3 Shah J observed  There objects persons or transactions essentially dissimilar are treated by the imposition of a uniform tax discrimination may result for in our view refusal to make a rational classification may itself in some cases operate as denial of equality
A similar view has been taken in Khandige Sham Bhat vs The Agricultural Income Tax Officer 4
it is sound law that refusal to make rational classification where grossly dissimilar subjects are treated by the law violates the mandate of article 14
Even so where the limited classification adopted in the present case is based upon a relevent differentia which has a nexus to the 1   501
2  3 CAs
1052 etc
of 1968 judgment dated August 13 1968
4  817
132 legislative and of taxation the court cannot strike down the law on the score that there is room for further classification
Refusal to classify is one thing and it bears on constitutionality not launching on micro classification to work out perfect justice is left to executive expediency and legislative judgment and not for forensic wisdom
The relationship between the legislative and judicial departments of government in the
determination of the validity of classification is wellsettled the authorities state with unanimity that the question of classification is primarily for the legislature and that it can never become a judicial question except for the purpose of determining in any given situation whether the legislative action is clearly unreasonable
The legislative classification is subject to judicial revision only to the extent of seeing that it is founded on real distinctions the subjects classified and not on artificial or irrelevant ones used for the purpose of evading the constitutional prohibition American Jurisprudence 2d  vol 16 para 496
In a classification for governmental purposes there cannot be an exact exclusion or inclusion of persons and things
The constitutional command for a state to afford equal protection of the law sets a goal not attainable by the invention and application of a precise formula
Classification in law as in the other departments of knowledge or practice is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars and differ from other things in those particulars
It is almost impossible in some matters to foresee and provide for every imaginable and exceptional case and a legislature ought not to be required to do so at the risk of having its legislation declared void although appropriate and proper upon the general subject upon which such legislation is to act so long as there is no substantial and fair ground to say that the statute makes an unreasonable and unfounded general classification and thereby denies to any person the equal protection of the laws
Hence a large latitude is allowed to the states for classification upon any reasonable basis and what is reasonable is a question of practical details into which fiction cannot enter ibid para 504
We have said enough to delineate the finer frontiers of the jurisdiction of the court and the legislature
Having sensitive regard to the obligation of the State to bring the law including the tax law into pulsing relationship with life including the life of the country s economy we see nothing so grossly unfair as to attract the lethal power of the court to strike down the notification under challenge
We dismiss the appeals but in the circumstances without costs to the respondents


Summary:
The match industry in India has grown over the decades
From the point of view of manufacturing techniques the safety match industry comprises of two distinct categories the machanised sector occupied by a few big manufacturers and the non mechanised sector comprising varying sizes of production units
The Government classified the safety match manufacturers into four categories depending on the quantity turn out and other relevant factors
But the Tariff commission recommended the abolition of sub classification for the purpose of levying excise duty and suggested separate scales of excise duty to be levied for four classes of units namely A D C and D Based on these recommendations the slab system of excise duty was abandoned by the Government and the category wise rate was adopted
As a result of the adoption of the differential duty scheme the advantages offered to the C  group went to the B  group which in turn resulted in fall in production
It also generated pseudo C category producers from out of the erstwhile B category which ultimately eliminated C category producers
The Government therefore withdrew the tax concession to C category and equated it with B category
The Government of India had from time to time issued notifications under section 37 of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944
The notification issued in 1967 levied excise duty on the basis of manufacture of matches of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power
As a result of this notification the B and C categories of old were now treated equally
The change in classification of the manufacturers was based on the use of power which in turn had a rational relation to the techniques and processes of production and their ability to bear the burden of the levy
This was done on the basis of recommendations of the Central Excise Re organisation Committee
The High Court refused to strike down the notification
it was contended in this Court that this unsocialistic step had left the small producers in the cold and virtually compelled them to retire from the industry and is thus discriminatory
Dismissing the appeals to this Court HELD This is a criticism of legislative judgment not a ground of judicial review
The Court is being invited to compel the legislative and executive wings to classify but from the judicial inspection tower the court may only search for arbitrary and irrational classification and its obverse namely capricious uniformity of treatment where a crying dissimilarity exists in reality
Unconstitutionality and not unwisdom of a legislation is the narrow area of judicial review
129 E The question of classification is primarily for legislative judgment and ordinarily does not become a judicial question
The power to classify being extremely broad and based on diverse considerations of executive pragmatism the judicature cannot rush in where even the legislature warily treads
All these operational restraints on judicial power must weigh more emphatically where the subject is taxation
130 E It is equally well settled that merely because there is room for classification it does not follow that legislation without classification is always unconstitutional
The court cannot strike down a law because it has not made the classification which commends to the court as proper
Nor can the legislative power be said to have been unconstitutionally exercised because within the class a sub classification was reasonable but has not been made
130 H 122 In the present cage a pertinent principle of differentiation which is visibly linked to production prowess has been adopted in the broad classification of power users and manual manufacturers
It is irrational to castigate this basis as unreal
131 C KT Moopil Nair vs State of Kerala   State of Kerala vs Haji K Hail Kutty Naha
As Nos 1052 etc
of 1968 judgment dated August 13 1968 and Khandige Sham Bhat vs The Agricultural Income Tax Officer   817 followed