ORDER K. CHANDRU, J. - Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner/State and Mr. Ramani, learned counsel leading Mr. M. Azeem for the respondent/assessee and perused the records. In all these four writ petitions the petitioner is the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Tirunelveli. The petitioner/State aggrieved by the common order passed by the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated March 26, 2003, the present writ petitions have been filed. By the impugned order, the STAT (Additional Bench), Madurai, in MTSA Nos. 461 of 2002, 462 of 2002, 463 of 2002, 465 of 2002, 467 of 2002 and 478 of 2002 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner/State and confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in all the six appeals. The appeals filed by the petitioner/State before the STAT relates to two assessees. They are M/s. Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd., Velimalai, who are respondents in MTSA Nos. 461 of 2002 and 467 of 2002 and M/s. Vaikundam Rubber Company Ltd. Alancholai, who are respondents in MTSA Nos. 462 of 2002, 463 of 2002, 465 of 2002 and 478 of 2002. The common order involved whether the respondents can be treated as a dealer under section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, by the assessing officer since the assessees sold raw-rubber and rubber latex effected to the other States as inter-State sales. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner who had heard the appeals filed by the assessee allowed the transaction as liable to exempt from the tax. The Tribunal agreed with the assessees and dismissed the appeals by its common order dated March 26, 2003 in respect of both M/s. Vaikundam Rubber Company Ltd., Alancholai, Kanyakumari District. It is seen from the additional typed set produced by the counsel for the respondents that in respect of Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd., the DCTO, Thuckalay, by his proceedings dated June 20, 2003 took note of the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, and also the confirmation order given by the STAT dated March 26, 2003 and cancelled the assessment. He also ordered for refund of the amount of Rs. 3,27,150. He also ordered for refund of the amount of Rs. 3,27,150. In respect of Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd., Velimalai, both the proceedings relating to MTSA No. 461 of 2002, MTSA No. 467 of 2002 in which the Tribunal passed orders were implemented by the department without filing any appeals. Therefore, Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee contended that in a common order if the Department decided to implement the order in respect of one party and they cannot file an appeal against the very same common order in respect of another party unless there is any points of distinction. In this context the learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Amar Bitumen and Allied Products P. Ltd. reported in [2007] 9 RC 40. He stated that though the said judgment related to Central excise, the principles laid down therein are of general nature. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the following passage found in pages 42 and 43 which is as follows : "Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bitumen Products (India) [1999] 107 ELT 58 (CEGAT), and the same has become final. This court in a catena of decisions has consistently taken the view that if an earlier order is not appealed against by the Revenue and the same has attained finality, then it is not open to the Revenue to accept the judgment/order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessees. The Revenue cannot pick and choose. (Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC); [2001] 10 SCC 231, Collector of Central Excise v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. [2003] 1 RC 902; [2003] 158 ELT 130 (SC), Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005] 5 RC 259, 261; [2005] 186 ELT 266 (SC) and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2006] 7 RC 453; [2006] 195 ELT 142 (SC), etc.)." Therefore, without going into the merits, the learned counsel requested that the writ petitions filed by the State was misconceived and should be dismissed on this short ground. However, Mr. However, Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the petitioner/State produced a copy of the letter dated August 2, 2002 addressed to him by the Joint Commissioner stating that the department had decided to file an appeal in respect of the orders in favour of Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd., Velimalai, and it was sent to the Special Government Pleader (Tax) even as early as September 21, 2004 with a covering letter. Therefore, it is not as if the decision of the STAT had become final. This self-serving letter sent by the department cannot be taken note of by this court because the DCTO, Thuckalay, had passed a final order implementing the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Tribunal and has also ordered for refund to the assessee which was also not denied by the State. If the department was sincere in filing an appeal, they ought to have filed an appeal in the year 2004. It is not open to them to contend after four years before this court that they are still contemplating to file appeals especially without any reservation, they have implemented the order and also ordered for refund which had also been paid to the assessee. The petitioner being the State cannot discriminate between two sets of assessees in respect of a common order and as observed by the honourable Supreme Court such a discrimination is impermissible. When once an order against the Revenue has attained finality, it is not open to the Revenue to accept the order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessee. In essence, the Revenue cannot pick and choose. In the light of the binding precedent laid by the honourable Supreme Court and in the light of the conduct of the respondents, this court has no hesitation to dismiss all the four writ petitions. Accordingly all the four writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.