( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice issued to the respondents to bring to tax a commodity known as dementhol oil sold by the respondents. The High Court proceeded to hold that the question whether dementhol oil falls within the category of oils of all kinds as mentioned in Entry 64 of the notification dated 15-11-1971 is covered by the decision in Essential Oil and Chemicals v. CST and decided the case in favour of the respondents. Now in this appeal that order is challenged. In the decision in Essential Oil and Chemicals case the entry that fell for consideration reads as follows:"64. Oils of all kinds other than (i) edible oils manufactured on ghannies by human or animal power, and (ii) perfumed hair oils," ( 2 ) THE U. P. Government with effect from 1-3-1979 issued a notification to the effect that dementhol oil was taxable at the point of first purchase at the rate of 10% on 28-2-1975. This aspect was highlighted in the writ petition at para 10. ( 3 ) THE question that arises for consideration before the High Court was whether commodity dealt with by the respondents also fell within that category of dementhol oil or not. That aspect has not been dealt with by any of the authorities. In the circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the high Court could have rendered a decision merely on the basis of the decision in Essential Oil and Chemicals case where the entry considered by the Court was entirely different (sic), ( 4 ) HOWEVER, Shri Dhruv Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out to us that there have been subsequently two more notifications issued on 12-9-1986 and 31-10-1988 wherein dementholised oil has been stated to be included in oils of all kinds. Therefore, the view taken by the high Court is correct-and interference is not called for. We do not think so. The proper course for the High Court in this case was to have allowed the parties to work out their rights before the authorities and thereafter to decide such a question in appropriate proceedings that may come before the High court. We do not think so. The proper course for the High Court in this case was to have allowed the parties to work out their rights before the authorities and thereafter to decide such a question in appropriate proceedings that may come before the High court. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon two decisions of this Court in Yogendra Nath Naskar v. CIT and Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commr. of Trade Tax, U. P. to contend that even subsequently legislation can be considered. We express no opinion on the same as we intend to relegate the parties to work out their respective rights before the authorities under the Act. If necessary, these decisions can be cited before the authorities concerned in support of their case. The order made by the High Court therefore is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the assessing authority concerned for determination in accordance with law. The objections, if any, may be filed within a period of one month from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.