JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-The appellant before us is the Central Arecanut Marketing and Processing Co-operative Ltd., Mangalore. It was impleaded as the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 15495 of 1981 filed by the respondents 2 to 19 in the Karnataka High Court. The Writ Petition filed in 1981 was allowed after nine years by the High Court by Judgment dated 27.8.1990.

2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows. 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 contended that thereafter they sold the same outside the State of Karnataka and that their sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce were subject to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. While so, a notification was issued on 14/17.9.1997(Sic 14/17.9.1977) 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. The respondent - Writ Petitioners contended before the High Court that the above notification not 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.

3. Before the High Court, the appellant filed a statement of objections contending that the appellant society was sponsored by the Government of Karnataka and Kerala and its membership consisted of growers from both the States, that therefore it was a class by itself as compared to the writ petitioners and hence Article 14 did not apply. When the writ petition came up for hearing after 9 years in 1990, counsel for the appellant pointed out that there was no evidence that any of the writ petitioners had entered into transactions of inter-State sales, that the exemption notification dated 14/17.9.1977 had since been superseded by a notification dated 31.3.1984 issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, by the State of Karnataka and the benefit of the exemption stood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. In other words, it was pointed out that the issue itself had become academic.

4. The High Court, even though it noticed that the benefit of the exemption notification of September 1977 in favour of all traders as issued by March 1984, proceeded to go into the merits of the case and quashed the exemption notification of September, 1977, without considering the peculiar consequences of such quashing as against the appellant in 1990. It is against the said Judgment of the High Court that this appeal has been preferred.

5. In this appeal, the respondent - writ petitioners have not chosen to appear. The learned counsel for the State has supported the case of the appellant. It was contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that before the High Court the writ petitioners did not adduce any proof of the extent of their inter-State sales, that the notification of September, 1977 was not hit by Article 14 because the appellant was a class by itself as it consisted of growers from Karnataka and Kerala. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of the subsequent notification of March 1984 extending the benefit of the exemption to all traders including the writ petitioners, the High Court - while dealing with the case in 1991 - ought not to have gone into the merits and ought not to have struck down the September 1977 notification in as much as the issue had become purely academic. Because of the exemption, and the consequent statutory prohibition against collection of tax, the appellant was precluded from collecting any tax so as to meet any liability that might arise in case the notification was struck down. These factors were not borne in mind by the High Court.

6. In our view, the submission of the learned cou