1. Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision-making. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.19680-81/2009is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of beedies in the name and style of M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (for short ‘KVAT Act’) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’).

3. Petitioners in all the other petition are registered dealers under the KVAT Act and distributors of beedis manufactured by Mangalore Ganesh beedi works.

4. The core question for decision-making in these petitions is whether in the facts and circumstances, the notification Annexure-“D” is “ex abundanti cautela” the consistent policy of the State, for over few decades exempting un-manufactured tobacco (including tobacco used for the manufacture of beedis) from tax under the KVAT Act?

5. The pleadings in the petitions disclose that traditionally and conventionally manufacture of beedis using tobacco is car