JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—These writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, are directed against the order dated 28-1-2011 (Kamala Enterprises, Bangalore v The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enf-6), Bangalore and Another 2011 (70) Kar. L.J. 808 (HC)), passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 17890 to 17923 of 2010, 18854 to 18890 of 2010 allowing the writ petitions. There is a delay of 211 days in preferring these appeals. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is filed seeking for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of Mr. M.N. Ravikumar, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement-6), Bangalore. 2. Heard Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, Sri Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondents in W.A. Nos. 16387 of 2011 and 3991 to 4023 of 2012 and Sri Vasanth Madhav, learned Counsel for respondents in W.A. Nos. 4024 to 4060 of 2012. 3. Accepting the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application, we deem it proper to condone the delay of 211 days in preferring these appeals. Delay is condoned. IA No. 2 of 2011 is allowed and these matters are taken up for admission. 4. Under the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the writ petitions, it was held that mixed masala powder of different varieties are one falling within Entry 89 of Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'KVAT Act') and not under the residuary items as indicated in Section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the KVAT Act. 5. It is aggrieved by this view taken by the learned Single Judge and thereby quashing the reassessment orders, the present appeals by the State. 6. Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State and Sri Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondents in W.A. Nos. 16387 of 2011 and 3991 to 4023 of 2012, submit that the question is now concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in common in STA Nos. 34 of 2012 and 36 to 69 of 2012 connected with STRP Nos. 77 and 134 to 142 of 2010, 196 of 2011 and 7 to 17 of 2012, disposed of on 28-9-2012 (Sakthi Masala (Private) Limited, Bangalore V State of Karnataka1). 7. 34 of 2012 and 36 to 69 of 2012 connected with STRP Nos. 77 and 134 to 142 of 2010, 196 of 2011 and 7 to 17 of 2012, disposed of on 28-9-2012 (Sakthi Masala (Private) Limited, Bangalore V State of Karnataka1). 7. While the appeals were by the assessee and revision petitions were by the State and as per this judgment, the appeals of the assessee were allowed and revision petitions of the State were dismissed. In the wake of the view taken in the above referred appeals and revision petitions, these appeals are dismissed without going into further merits of these appeals, but following the view expressed by the Division Bench in the above referred judgment.