( 1. ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 3160 of 1985 (Lucky Boot House, Katni v. State of M. P. and Ors.) and Miscellaneous Petition No. 3291 of 1986 (Suresh Shoe Emporium, Satna v. State of M. P. and Ors.) also.

( 2. ) A Notification F. No. A-3-16-81 (12) ST-V, dated 7th April, 1981, was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the State Government exempting from payment of tax the sales of the class of goods specified in column (1) of the schedule given below the notification, to the extent specified in column (2), for the period specified in column (3) of the said schedule, subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in column (4) thereof. Item 1, mentioned in the schedule, in the category of class of goods, is shown as "footwear made of rubber or plastic". The whole of tax under Section 6 of the Act is shown the extent of exemption in column (2), whereas the period of exemption in column (3) is stated to be from 1st April, 1981, to 31st March, 1982 (both days inclusive ). We are informed that this period has been enhanced from time to time. In column (4), containing restrictions and conditions, subject to which exemption is granted, is stated "when sold by a dealer registered under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959), who deals exclusively in footwear made of rubber and/or plastic and the sale price of such footwear does not exceed rupees ten per pair". The prayer contained in the three writ petitions, which are being decided by this order, is that the word "exclusively", occurring in column (4) of the notification, referred to above may be quashed, inasmuch as it is arbitrary and indeed contrary to the purpose for which the exemption was granted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved in the use of the word "exclusively". For the respondents, it was urged by the learned Advocate-General that grant of exemption under Section 12 is a matter of policy decision to be taken by the State Government and can be availed of only in the manner specified in the notification granting exemption.

( 3. ) HAVING considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that even though it is true that under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the discretion to grant exemption with reference to class of dealers or any goods or class of goods lies with the State Government, but it also, in our opinion, is equally true that if the conditions or restrictions, which have been placed in the matter of grant of exemption, which militate against the purpose for which exemption has been granted and have indeed the effect of defeating that purpose to a large extent, they cannot be upheld, if no reasonable justification is forthcoming for introducing such restrictions or conditions, which indeed tender it axbitraxy. Sub-section (1} of Section 12 of the Act read as hereunder:

12. Saving.- (1) The State Government may, by notification and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified therein, exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively, in whole or in part (i) any class of dealers or any goods or class of goods from the payment of tax under this Act for such period as may be specified in the notification; (ii) any dealer or class of dealers from any provision of the Act for such period as may be specified in the notification; (iii) any turnover in relation to any goods or class of goods or in relation to any dealer or class of dealers from the payment of additional tax under this Act for such period as may be specified in the notification.

(2 ). . . Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 indicates that exemption from payment of tax under the Act can be in respect of either (a) any class of dealers, or (b) any goods