M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are dealers under the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), challenge the constitutional validity of S. 8a (3a)of the 'act' (at inserted by the Karnataka Silcs Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Karnataka Act no. 7 of 1981) and the proceedings for revision, rectification or re-assessment, as the case may be. Initiated against them and the notices issued in this behalf by the authorise, under the'act' for the assessment periods from 1-4 1972 to 10-7-1981. In the case of some of the petitioners wliere these proceedings have been completed, the orders which the proceedings have culminated in are challenged by the petitioners concerned. ( 2 ) S. 8a (l)of the 'act' empowers the State Government to make, by notification, exemption or reduction in the rate respecting any tax payable under the 'act' on the sale or purchase of any specified goods or class of goods at all points, in the series of sales by successive dealers, or by any specified class of persons in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover. In exercise of this power the State government issued the Notification s. O 2048 No. FD. 283 CSL 70 dated 10-9-1970 exempting with effect from 1-10-1970 the tax payable under S. 6 of the 'act' on the purchases of articles of Gold and Silver (whether set with precious stones or not) by a manufacturer of such articles subject to the conditions stipulated in the said notification. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, sub-sec. (3a) inserted in S. 8a of the Act by the said Amending act 7 of 1981 provides that if the rate of tax payable under the 'act' in respect of any goods or class of goods gets modified, notification, if any, issued in respect of such goods or class of goods under S. 8a (l) (a), shall, with effect from the date on which the modification of the rate of tax became effective, be deemed to be cancelled. By S. 4 of Act 7 of 1981 it is provided that said sub-sec. (3a) shall be deemed to have always been inserted. By S. 4 of Act 7 of 1981 it is provided that said sub-sec. (3a) shall be deemed to have always been inserted. The rate of tax respecting the goods or class of goods covered by the notification dated 10-9-1970 came to be modified with effect from 1-4-1972 raising the rate of tax from 3% to 3-1/2%, The proceedings for revision, re-assessment of rectification of re-assessment impugned in these Writ petitions were commenced on the ground that in view of S. 8a (3a) the said notification dated 10-9-1970 stood restrospectively cancelled with effect from 1-4-1972 when the rate of tax was modified and that accordingly the purchase turn-over relating to the goods referred to in that notification lost the exempttion from and become exigible to, tax from 1-4-1972, ( 4 ) IN these Writ Petitions, petitioners contend that S. 8a (3a) itself is not constitutionally valid and secondly, that, at all events, the notification dated 10-9-1970 granting exemption is not a notification falling under S. 8a (l) (a)- to which alone sub-sec. (3a) of S. 8a of the 'act' is attracted-and that accordingly the proceeding impugned in the petitions which proceed on the premise that that notificanon attracts S. 8a (3a) are without the authority of law. ( 5 ) AFTER the petitioners were heard fully and orders were reserved, learned government Advocate made a motion that the Authorities administering the 'act' intiated the proceedings challenged in these writ petitions on an erroneous impression that the concerned notification dated 10-9-1970 was one issued under S. 8-A (1) (a) of the act to which S. 8-A (3-A) was attracted; that on a correct under-standing of the matter, the said notification would not fall under S. 8-A (l) (a) but would fall under S. 8-A (l) (b) of the Act and that, therefore, the said notification would not attract the provisions of S. 8-A (3-A) of the Act. He also stated that a memo on these lines would be filed. ( 6 ) UPON the above motion, the matters were directed to be posted 'for being spoken to'. The learned Government advocate has filed a memo which reads :"memo on behalf of Respondents.-It is submitted that the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 8-A (3-/a) of the Karnataka sales Tax Act and also the notices issued to them. ( 6 ) UPON the above motion, the matters were directed to be posted 'for being spoken to'. The learned Government advocate has filed a memo which reads :"memo on behalf of Respondents.-It is submitted that the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 8-A (3-/a) of the Karnataka sales Tax Act and also the notices issued to them. (2) The Respondents submit that the notification No. FD 283 csl 70 dated 10-9-1970 was issued in the exercise of the power of the state Government under S. 8 A (l) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. (3) It is further submitted that s. 8-A (3-A) of the Act is attracted to notifications issued under S. 8-A (l) (a) of the Act. (4) A true copy of the letter addressed by the Commissioner of commercial Taxes is herewith filed. It is prayed that the above writ petitions may be disposed of in view of the above memo and appropriate orders may be passed". ( 7 ) IN view of this memo, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the question of the constitutional validity of s. 8-A (3-A), as the memo, in effect, concedes the second contention urged for the petitioners that the notifications s. O. 2048 dated 10-9-1970 is not one made under and traceable to S. 8-A (l) (a) of the Act. In view of this memo, the proceedings initiated against petitioners for revision, re-assessment, or rectification as the case may be, and orders, if any, already made in such proceedings cannot be allowed to stand but require to be quashed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, recording the memo filed by the learned Government Advocate, we allow these writ petitions in part and quash the impugned notices, proceedings or orders as the case may be, impugned in these writ petitions. ( 9 ) THE parties are left to bear their own costs in these petitions. ( 10 ) SRI M. R. Achar, learned Government advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within three weeks from today. --- *** --- .`