ORDER H. L. DATTU, J. - Sri Veda Murthy, learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents and is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks from today. Though the matter is listed in preliminary hearing "B" group, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Petitioner is a contractor. He is also registered himself under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1997-98, petitioner had approached the respondent-assessing authority seeking permission for composition of tax as provided under section 17(6) of the Act. Accepting the request so made by the petitioner, the assessing authority, has proceeded with the matter under section 17(6) of the Act. Thereafter, petitioner had approached the respondent-authorities requesting them to complete the assessment in his case not under section 17(6) of the Act, but under section 5-B of the Act. The request so made by the petitioner is rejected by the respondent-authority by its endorsement dated July 17, 2000. While doing so, the assessing authority has observed as under : "On the basis of an application in form 8-A requesting and exercising option for payment of tax by way of composition as provided under section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, permission is granted and you have been allowed to pay tax by way of composition. The tax deducting authorities have deducted tax 4 per cent. There is no provision under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, to cancel the above benefit nor is there any law under the Act, allowing the dealer to opt for regular assessment under section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act now has been permitted to pay tax by way of composition under section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. In view of the above position of law, your request for cancellation of permission granted under section 17(6) and to assess you regularly under section 5-B cannot be considered and is therefore, rejected." Aggrieved by this endorsement petitioner is before this Court. Sri Rabinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessing authority has committed a grave error in rejecting a reasonable request made by the petitioner in his application dated January 13, 2000. Sri Rabinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessing authority has committed a grave error in rejecting a reasonable request made by the petitioner in his application dated January 13, 2000. In support of his contention the learned counsel draws my attention to the observations made by this Court in Mycon Construction Limited v. State of Karnataka reported in [1998] 111 STC 322. In the aforesaid decision this Court at paragraph 13 of the judgment has observed as under : "However, in view of the categorical statement made by the State in the statement of objections stating that this Court can permit the petitioners to opt for regular assessment under section 5-B; and I have taken that factor as one of the factors to come to the conclusion that the impugned provision in no way results in arbitrariness or violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioners either under article 14 or under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; it is necessary to reserve liberty to the petitioners to opt for regular assessment under section 5-B of the Act notwithstanding the fact that they had opted for composition under section 17(6) of the Act." In the instant case, the facts seems to be identical with the facts considered by this Court in Mycon Construction Limited's case [1998] 111 STC 322. The assessee in this case had prayed for composition benefits under section 17(6) of the Act. Thereafter, realising that the composition application filed by him may not be beneficial to him, had thought fit to approach the assessing authority to complete the assessments in his case for the assessment year 1997-98 under the provisions of section 5-B of the Act. In my opinion, the assessing authority in view of the observations made by the learned Judge of this Court in Mycon Construction Limited's case [1998] 111 STC 322, should have passed an order completing the assessment under section 5-B of the Act without issuing the impugned endorsement. In view of the above, the endorsement issued by the assessing authority is contrary to the observations made by this Court in Mycon Construction Limited's case [1998] 111 STC 322. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to sustain the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the same requires to be set aside by this Court. For the reasons stated, this writ petition is allowed. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to sustain the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the same requires to be set aside by this Court. For the reasons stated, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by the assessing authority dated July 17, 2000 is set aside. The respondent-assessing authority is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated January 13, 2000 in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the course of the order and also the observations made in Mycon Construction Limited's case [1998] 111 STC 322. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. Petition allowed.