JUDGMENT A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar J.-The petitioner, who is advocate by profession and assessee under Income-tax Act, 1961, challenges exhibit P10 notification dated April 21, 2009, by which Income-tax Rules, 1962, were amended to provide for accelerated depreciation at rate of 50 per cent. for new commercial vehicles that were acquired on or after 1st day of January, 2009, but before 1st day of October, 2009, and put to use before first day of October, 2009, for purposes of business or profession. petitioner, having purchased new motor car on December 11, 2009, found that he was not entitled to accelerated depreciation envisaged under exhibit P10 notification in view of fact that he had not purchased car during period envisaged for accelerated depreciation under exhibit P10 notification. In writ petition, notification is impugned on ground that, in differentiating between those assessees who had acquired commercial vehicles during period from April 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009, and those who had purchased motor vehicles between October 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, notification had virtually differentiated between assessees who were similarly situated, for purposes of assessment during assessment year 201011. It is specific contention of petitioner that by effecting classification between assessees in particular financial year, which classification did not have any rational basis that had any nexus to object sought to be achieved by legislation, fundamental right of petitioner, against discriminatory treatment, under article 14 of Constitution of India had been infringed. petitioner also impugns notification on ground that amendment to Rules, that had effect of granting benefit of enhanced depreciation in middle of financial year to only certain assessees, militated against settled position in law that law, as applicable on first day of financial year, had to apply to all those who were similarly placed, during said year. statement has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it is pointed out that amendment to Rules, through exhibits P9 and P10 notifications, were necessitated pursuant to announcement by Union Government of additional measures for stimulating economy for minimising impact of global financial crisis on Indian economy. Exhibit R2(A) press release is produced, along with statement, to show that as measure designed to counter recessionary trend, it was announced by Union Government that accelerated depreciation of 50 per cent. will be provided for commercial vehicles which are purchased on or after January 1, 2009, but before March 31, 2009, which date was subsequently extended to September 30, 2009, vide exhibit P10 notification. It is clarified that benefit of higher depreciation of 50 per cent. was extended to acquisition of new commercial vehicles during period specified in view of fact that Government of India had opined that automobile industry still needed support during period when recessionary trend was noticed. Explanatory Memoranda in respect of exhibits P9 and P10 notifications, which were laid on table of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, are also produced as exhibit R2(B) and exhibit R2(C) along with statement of respondents. It is specific contention of respondents, therefore, that in view of fact that benefit of accelerated depreciation, in respect of commercial vehicles purchased and put to use during prescribed period, was in furtherance of policy decision of Government taking into account recessionary trend in economy, there was valid basis for extension of benefit of accelerated depreciation only in respect of vehicles purchased and put to use during period fixed by Union Government for providing stimulus to economy. It is contented that when there was rational basis for classification of vehicles for purposes of grant of accelerated depreciation benefit, it was not open to petitioner to impugn notifications as offending provisions of article 14 of Constitution of India. I have heard Sri K. P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner as also Sri P. K. R. Menon, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case as also submissions made across Bar, I note that challenge in writ petition is against exhibit P10 notification that had effect of amending Income-tax Rules, 1962, to provide for enhanced rate of depreciation of 50 per cent., as against regular rate of depreciation of 15 per cent. applicable to commercial vehicles, for such vehicles as were purchased and put to use between April 1, 2009, and September 30, 2009, in financial year 2009-10, relevant to assessment year 2010-11. contention of petitioner is that by limiting benefit of accelerated depreciation to such vehicles as were purchased and put to use between April 1, 2009, and September 30, 2009, those assessees who had purchased similar vehicles and put them to use between October 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, in same financial year, were discriminated against and, hence, petitioner, who belonged to latter category of assessees, was aggrieved by breach of his rights, against discriminatory treatment, envisaged under article 14 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance on decisions reported in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 SC 552, and Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India [1990] 185 ITR 104 (SC); [1990] 4 SCC 366 in support of proposition that classification that was brought about by Legislature had to be rational in that it had to be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all persons grouped together and not in others who are left out and further, those qualities or characteristics had to have reasonable relation to object of legislation. It is his contention that, in instant case, there was no basis for classification among two categories of assessees for purposes of grant of accelerated depreciation. He would also place reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC); AIR 1999 SC 3185 to contend that allowance for depreciation is granted to replace value of asset to extent it has depreciated during period of accounting relevant to assessment year and as value has, to that extent, been lost, corresponding allowance for depreciation takes place. It is emphasised that concept of depreciation takes into account depreciation of value of asset during period of accounting, which, under Income-tax Act, is whole year. It is his submission, therefore, that in instant case, benefit of accelerated depreciation ought to have been extended to all assessees for whole year instead of confining it to only specified period during financial year. Lastly, counsel for petitioner would also refer to decision of Supreme Court in Varkisons Engineers v. State of Kerala [2009] 25 VST 1 (SC); [2009] 16 SCC 120 for proposition that imposition of different tariff in middle of assessment year could not be validly sustained and provisions of statute as on 1st day of financial year had to be applicable to assessments for said year. Having considered said contentions advanced on behalf of petitioner, I find that proposition, that classification of persons effected by legislation for purposes of attaining specific ends has necessarily to pass test of permissible classification under article 14 of Constitution of India in that it cannot be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing just and reasonable relation to objects sought to be achieved by Legislature, cannot be disputed. issue involved in instant case, however, is whether it can be said that there was any discriminatory treatment meted out to petitioner through amendment to Income-tax Rules pursuant to exhibit P10 notification. As already noted, petitioner, like any other assessee similarly placed, was entitled to claim depreciation at rate of 15 per cent. in respect of vehicle that he had purchased and put to use during relevant financial year. Exhibit P10 notification as well as exhibit P9 notification that preceded it, were measures that were introduced by way of amendment to Income-tax Rules to cater to particular situation that existed in country and affected its economy. Exhibit R2(A), exhibit R2(B) and exhibit R2(C) documents along with statement filed by respondents would clearly show that there was policy decision taken by Union Government, taking into account impact of global financial crisis on country's economy and providing for additional measures for stimulating economy to minimise recessionary trend that it was going through. It was felt necessary by Union Government to provide for higher depreciation of 50 per cent. in respect of new commercial vehicles that were acquired between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2009, so as to support automobile industry during period when recessionary trend was noticed in said industry as part of impact of global financial crisis on country's economy. In other words, it is apparent that exhibits P9 and P10 notifications were necessitated to cater to particular situation faced with regard to country's economy and it was in order to provide boost to automobile industry during period of recession that said measures were adopted by Union Government. commercial vehicles that were purchased and put to use during period, determined by Union Government as necessary for purposes of providing stimulus to economy, thus stood clearly distinct and different from commercial vehicles that were purchased and put to use during period in financial year when there was no recessionary trend in particular industry. It is settled law that when it comes to laws relating to economic activities, they have to be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc., and that court must adjudge constitutionality of such legislative measures by generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or inequities or by possibilities of abuse of any of its provisions. When it comes to economic decisions, it is for State to decide what economic and social policy it should pursue and what discriminations advance those social and economic policies. It is in view of inherent complexity of these fiscal adjustments that courts give larger discretion to Legislature in matter of its preferences of economic and social policies and effectuate chosen system in all possible and reasonable ways (See R. K. Garg v. Union of India [1982] 133 ITR 239 (SC) and P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC 100) Going by principles laid down with regard to classification under fiscal statutes in decisions noted above, I am of view that exhibit P10 notification to extent it confines benefit of enhanced/accelerated depreciation for year 2009-10 to only such commercial vehicles as have been purchased and put to use during period from April 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009, cannot be viewed as discriminatory and, therefore, violative of rights of petitioner under article 14 of Constitution of India. I must now deal with contention of petitioner with regard to concept of depreciation as allowance that is granted in respect of unit of assessment and, therefore, necessarily allowance that must be applied for whole year and not only for part of year. petitioner is no doubt right in contending that as concept, depreciation is meant to replace value of asset to extent it has depreciated during period of accounting relevant to assessment year. instant case is not one where petitioner, as assessee, has been denied benefit of depreciation for any part of year. As matter of fact, section 32 of Income-tax Act read with rule 5 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Appendix I to said Rules clearly provides for depreciation at rate of 15 per cent. for vehicles purchased during financial year in question. Thus, it is not case where there was no depreciation that was granted in respect of vehicles during accounting period. Exhibit P10 notification only had effect of confining benefit of enhanced depreciation to certain category of vehicles that were purchased and put to use during prescribed period. I am of view that so long as assessees under Income-tax Act were granted benefit of reasonable rate of depreciation under Income-tax Act, mere grant of enhanced depreciation to category of assessees who had complied with requirement of purchasing and putting to use vehicles during prescribed period, would not militate against concept of depreciation that was envisaged under Income-tax Act for all such assessees. I am also not persuaded by contentions of petitioner with regard to introduction of benefit of enhanced depreciation in middle of financial year. It has to be noticed that benefit of enhanced depreciation was introduced initially through exhibit P9 notification with effect from April 1, 2009. said benefit was continued till September 30, 2009, through exhibit P10 notification. In so far as benefit of enhanced/accelerated depreciation was conferred taking into account policy decision of Union Government to stimulate country's economy, it cannot be viewed as situation similar to introduction of new rate of tax during middle of assessment year. exhibits P9 and P10 notifications were issued in response to situation that called for incentives so as to boost economy that was facing recessionary trends. measures introduced in Income-tax Rules to further policy decision of Union Government, cannot be seen as akin to introduction of new rate of tax, for purposes of mounting challenge against same as arbitrary. Thus, I do not find any merit in challenge against exhibit P10 notification on ground that same offends fundamental rights of petitioner under article 14 of Constitution of India. Resultantly, writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. *** R. Surendran v. Union of India