This bunch of eleven writ petitions involve similar questions of law. Facts in brief, as pleaded in various petitions, are as under :

Facts :

C.W.P. No. 2272 of 2006 :

The petitioner in this case is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of purchase, sale and manufacturing of yarn. It is duly registered under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act"). The petitioner claims that after purchasing raw material within the State of Punjab and after using the same in the manufacturing of finished goods, majority of them are sold in the course of intra-State sales and tax on the finished goods is paid in a accordance with law. The petitioner, in the process, had also purchased raw material from certain units (hereinafter described as "the exempted units"), enjoying exemption from or deferment of payment of tax granted in terms of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 (for short, "the 1991 Rules"). The petitioner further claims that in calculating his taxable turnover, in terms of rule 29(xii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949 (for short, "the 1949 Rules"), deduction thereof is not being allowed by the authorities below on the ground that though the goods purchased by the petitioner are leviable to tax at the first stage of sale and since no tax on the purchase of goods from exempted units has been paid, which is totally contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioner has further stated that assessment for the year 2001-02 was initially framed by the Assessing Authority vide order dated March 18, 2004 and rebate of the goods leviable to tax at the first stage of sale purchased by the petitioner from the exempted unit was granted under rule 29(xii) of the 1949 Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was initially issued notice for reassessment; then a suo motu notice under section 21(1) of the Act and finally for reassessment on statutory form ST-XIX on October 14, 2005 on the ground that turnover on that account has escaped levy of tax. Vide reassessment order dated November 7, 2005, the deduction already allowed under rule 29(xii) of the 1949 Rules was disallowed and accordingly additional demand of tax was raised against the petitioner, which is impugned in the present case.

C.W.P. No. 10527 of 2005 :

The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of yarn, which itself is also an exempted unit. It is duly registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner claims that it purchased raw material from another exempted unit. During the course of original assessment proceedings, for the year 2002-03, the claim of deduction of the petitioner on account of raw material purchased from the exempted unit was disallowed vide assessment order dated September 29, 2004, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

C.W.P. No. 10528 of 2005 :

The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of yarn, which itself is also an exempted unit. It is duly registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner claims that it purchased raw material from another exempted unit. During the course of original assessment proceedings, for the year 2001-02, the claim of deduction of the petitioner on account of raw material purchased from the exempted unit was disallowed vide assessment order dated September 29, 2004, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

C.W.P. No. 10786 of 2005 :

The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of yarn, which itself is also an exempted unit. It is duly registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner claims that it purchased raw material from another exempted unit. During the course of original assessment proceedings, for the year 2001-02, the claim of deduction of the petitioner on account of raw material purchased from the exempted unit was disallowed vide assessment order dated September 29, 2004 which is impugned in the p