When the writ petition came up for hearing after 9 years in 1990, companynsel for the appellant pointed out that there was numberevidence that any of the writ petitioners had entered into transactions of inter State sales, that the exemption numberification dated 14/17.9.1977 had since been superseded by a numberification dated 31.3.1984 issued under Section 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, by the State of Karnataka and the benefit of the exemption stood extended from March 1984 to all other traders.
The Writ Petitioners were all registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and claimed to be purchasers of arecanut from local registered dealers by paying Sales tax on the first sale in the State and companytended that thereafter they sold the same outside the State of Karnataka and that their sales in the companyrse of inter State trade and companymerce were subject to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
While so, a numberification was issued on 14/17.9.1997 under Section 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the State of Karnataka exempting the inter State sales of tax suffered arecanut effected by the appellant Society.
Before the High Court, the appellant filed a statement of objections companytending that the appellant society was sponsored by the Government of Karnataka and Kerala and its membership companysisted of growers from both the States, that therefore it was a class by itself as companypared to the writ petitioners and hence Article 14 did number apply.
The Writ Petition filed in 1981 was allowed after nine years by the High Court by Judgment dated 27.8.1990.
The respondent Writ Petitioners companytended before the High Court that the above numberification number only impeded inter State sales effected by them but was also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as it discriminated against the Writ Petitioners, who were also registered dealers in arecanut.
15495 of 1981 filed by the respondents 2 to 19 in the Karnataka High Court.
It was impleaded as the second respondent in Writ Petition No.
The appellant before us is the Central Arecanut Marketing and Processing Co operative Ltd., Mangalore.
It is against the said Judgment of the High Court that this appeal has been preferred.
In other words, it was pointed out that the issue itself had become academic.
The relevant facts of the case are as follows.
