JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

1. When the compounded tax for dealers in ornaments or articles of gold, or other metals were retrospectively amended for the year 2011-12, the dealers raised a challenge against the collection of differential tax. Several writ petitions were filed before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed all the writ petitions after concluding that the differential tax attempted to be collected from the writ petitioners for the assessment year 2011-12 was legally unsustainable and accordingly quashed all the impugned orders/demand notices. The department has come up in these appeals contending that the retroactive operation of the compounded rate of tax was within the scope of the Government’s authority and the consequential collection of differential tax was legally valid.

2. This batch consists of 13 writ appeals and two writ petitions. W.A. No. 2312/2015 is treated as the main appeal. The questions arising for consideration are common and hence we heard all the writ appeals and the writ petitions together. Since the circumstances are similar in all