The short facts leading to this writ appeal are as follows :

2. The appellant is a private limited company. Apart from owning tea estates, it also manages tea estates and is carrying on business in growing as well as manufacturing tea. Besides, it is also a registered exporter of coffee having been registered with the Coffee Board, the first respondent herein. The said Board is a statutory one constituted under the Coffee Act, 1942. It is empowered to control and develop the entire coffee industry in this country.

3. The appellant was able to secure an order for supplying 2, 000 tonnes of coffee powder from Romania. In order to effect that supply, the appellant bid at an export coffee auction held by the first respondent. The appellant was the highest bidder and the auction was knocked in its favour. Accordingly, the price was also paid. Even at the time of participating in the auction and the payment of money, the Board knew that the participation by the appellant was to fulfil the order of the foreign buyer for coffee powder and that the same was exempt under the proviso to section 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with section 5(3) thereof as stated in article 286 of the Constitution of India. Notwithstanding this, the Board demanded sales tax at 6 per cent on the sales of coffee effected to the appellant, as it was of the view that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. On 3rd February, 1982, the appellant wrote to the Board stating that what was exported to Romania in the form of powder was nothing but the seeds purchased at the auction conducted by the Board which had been ground after roasting. Therefore, the levy of sales tax was improper and unauthorised. However, the Board declined to release the coffee without payment of the price as well as the sales tax. Therefore, the appellant was obliged to pay the amount by way of sales tax but for which payment, it would not have been possible for the appellant to fulfil the contract with the foreign buyer. The matter was represented to the Board. It sent a reply on 17th September, 1982, to the effect that the appellant purchased only the coffee seeds but subsequently the seeds had been converted into coffee powder and, therefore, by reason of such conversion, it would not qualify for exemption under section 5(3) and the proviso to section 6(1) of the Act. Up to 30th July, 1982, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 88, 790.33 being the sales tax and surcharge on the sales effected to it in the State of Tamil Nadu.

4. The appellant wrote another letter on 6th October, 1982, staling that though coffee seeds are roasted and ground into coffee powder, their identity is not altered. What was purchased and exported still remained only "coffee" and, therefore, the exemption claimed must be made available. On this basis, the appellant called upon the Board to refund the amount collected from it by way of sales tax. The Board declined to do so; whereupon, the appellant preferred W.P. No. 1740 of 1983 for certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Board dated 17th September, 1982, and to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to refund the sales tax illegally collected from it amounting to Rs. 88, 790.33 and surcharge thereon.

5. The contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that the word "coffee" ought not to be given a narrow meaning so as to deprive the appellant of the benefit of obtaining exemption. The stand of the Board was that had only the same goods, namely, coffee seeds which were purchased by the appellant at the auction held by the Coffee Board been exported, the benefit of exemption under section 5(3) of the Act would be available. As a matter of fact, section 5(3) categorically refers to "those goods". In such a case, one cannot, after changing the character of the goods, say that the very goods were exported.

6. The learned Judge (Ratnam, J.) observed that no dou