Judgment :- VEERASWAMI, J. On 24th January, 1968, we disposed of Writ Petition No. 2513 of 1967. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the revenue in that case, gave an undertaking on behalf of the State that pending final disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes concerned, there would be no steps taken for recovery of the tax due. That undertaking was recorded and it formed the sole basis for dismissal of the writ petition. Since then the Special Government Pleader (Commercial Taxes) has requested that the matter may be posted for being spoken to. That is how it comes before this Court over again. Learned Advocate-General argues that, though he had given that undertaking, he would like this Court to make an order interpreting the scope of the order of the Supreme Court in C.M.P. No. 1587 of 1967 dated 18th July, 1967. In Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, held sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be void and unconstitutional on the ground that they violated Article 301 of the Constitution. In Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, held sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be void and unconstitutional on the ground that they violated Article 301 of the Constitution. The State has filed an appeal against that judgment and by C.M.P. No. 1587 of 1967, has obtained from the Supreme Court an interim order dated 5th May, 1967, which is as follows :- "That the petitioner-appellant herein do forthwith take out to the respondent herein notice of motion in respect of the application for stay (C.M.P. No. 1587 of 1967) above-mentioned returnable before this Court on the 17th day of July, 1967, and that, pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of the said notice of motion for stay, the operation of the judgment and order dated the 7th April, 1967, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 836 of 1966 be and is hereby stayed and THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned." * After notice, the matter relating to stay came up before the Supreme Court again and by an order dated 18th July, 1967, the Supreme Court said : "The application for stay above-mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 18th day of July, 1967, upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon the Advocate-General, Madras, undertaking on behalf of the State of Madras that the State shall not collect the tax which remains to be collected from the respondent herein pending the hearing and final disposal by the Court of the appeal above-mentioned THIS COURT DOTH RECORD the said undertaking and subject thereto DOTH ORDER that the ad interim stay granted to the appellant above-named by this Court's order dated the 5th day of May, 1967, be and is hereby made absolute and that, pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of the appeal above-mentioned, the operation of the judgment and order dated the 7th April, 1967, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 836 of 1966 be and is hereby stayed and THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned." * In Writ Petition No. 3909 of 1967 this Court while declining to issue a rule nisi and dismissing the petition, took the view that the scope of the order of the Supreme Court dated 18th July, 1967, was confined to the parties to the said stay petition and did not extend further so as to operate as a suspension of the operation of the judgment in Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer as regards other assessees or parties not before the Supreme Court. This is what this Court stated in disposing of Writ Petition No. 3909 of 1967 The petition is to prohibit the Joint Commercial Tax Officer from proceeding further on the ground that his proposals to assess are not in conformity with the law as declared by this Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer It is not to be expected that the department will be free either not to follow or by-pass any judgment of this Court so long as it holds the field and has not been reversed either by a fuller Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court. On that view of the matter, we are not prepared to issue the rule at the moment in the expectation that the law, as declared by this Court, will be followed by the department. We would add that suspension by the Supreme Court of the operation of the judgment for purposes of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court does not, in our opinion, mean that the judgment stands reversed. Subject to this observation, the petition is dismissed. "Even after hearing the learned Advocate-General we take the same view as to the scope of the said orders of the Supreme Court. No doubt the interim stay did not in so many words say that it was limited in its operation to the parties before the Supreme Court. Even so, in our opinion, normally when a stay order is granted by a Court, its operation is but confined to the parties before the Court. In any case the matter is made clear by the order of the Supreme Court dated 18th July, 1967. The Advocate-General having given an undertaking for the State that the tax due would not be collected from the respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court pending final disposal thereof, the ad interim stay was, subject to the undertaking, made absolute. In our opinion, therefore, the stay granted by the Supreme Court which was based on the undertaking given by the Advocate-General, operates only as between the parties to the stay petition and the appeal. In our opinion, therefore, the stay granted by the Supreme Court which was based on the undertaking given by the Advocate-General, operates only as between the parties to the stay petition and the appeal. We are, therefore, unable to construe the stay order of the Supreme Court as having a wider effect so as to take it that the operation of the judgment of this Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer stands suspended even in respect of assessees or parties or matters not before the Supreme Court in the appeal pending before it. We may add that the State had filed S.C.P. No. 67 of 1967 in which it had asked for stay of the operation of that judgment. In disposing that petition this Court stated :-" * On this stay petition, we feel some difficulty. We declared parts of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act to be void and unconstitutional. That being the case, we do not see how we can suspend the operation of our judgment. The effect of the judgment is not like any other decree or order which is normally executable. Where the law itself is declared to be unconstitutional, we do not think it appropriate that by grant of stay the position resulting from the judgment can in any way be affected. On that view, we decline to grant stay." This order was made on 29th April, 1967. We are of the same opinion even now. It follows, therefore, that Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer has to be given effect to and be followed by the revenue in the State with respect to assessees or parties other than those in the appeal pending in the Supreme Court.