1. BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 80HHC, Explanation (aa), of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. SECTION 80HHC was made to give certain benefits to exporters. However, Explanation (aa) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991, with effect from April 1, 1986. An exception was carved out from the main provision of SECTION 80HHC. In our opinion, Explanation (aa) was to plug a loophole in the Act since there was possibility that the goods after purchase may not be exported at all and yet the benefit may be claimed. In our opinion, Explanation (aa) is constitutionally valid as it was made to plug a loophole in SECTION 80HHC. It is settled law that in fiscal statutes greater latitude is given to the Legislature and the Legislature has an option to pick and choose the item which is to be taxed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that a correct interpretation of Explanation (aa) of Section 80HHC should be given by this court because a wrong interpretation has been put by th