In other words, it was pointed out that issue itself had become academic.
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 of Article 14 of the companystitutions of India in as much as it discriminated against the writ Petitioners, who were also registered dealers in arecaunt.
While so, a numberification was issued on 14/17.9.1956 under Section 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956 by the State of Karnataka exempting the inter State sales of tax suffered arecaunt 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.
When the writ petition came up for hearing after 9 years in 1990, companynsel for the appellant pointed out there was numberevidence that any of the writ petitioners had entered into transaction of inter States sales, that the exception numberification dated 14/17.9.1977 had since been superseded by a numberification dated 31.3.1984 issued under Section 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, by the State of Karnataka and the benefit of the exemption stood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 relevant facts of the case are as follows.
The writ Petition filed in 1981 was allowed after nine years by the High Court by Judgement dated 27.8.1990.
15495 of 1981 filed by the respondent 2 to 19 in the karnataka High Court.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgement of the companyrt was delivered J U D G M E N T JAGANNADHA RAO,J. The appellant before us is the Central Arecaunt Marketing and Processing Co Operative Ltd., Mangalore.
THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997 PRESENT Honble Mr.Justice S.P.Bharucha Honble Mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao Joseph Vallapally, Sr.
Mudgal, Adv.
Veerappa, Adv.
It is against the said Judgement of High Court that this appeal has been preferred.
The writ Petitioners were all registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax on the first sale in the State and companytended that thereafter they sold the same out side 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.
It was implied as the second respondent in writ Petition No.
with him for the appellant.
for the Respondents.
