ORDER (Per D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J.) Writ Petition is by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the KVAT Act'). Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by certain action taken by the Respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in terms of impugned order at Annexure-E, dated 13.12.2006, whereunder the Petitioner has been called upon to pay certain amounts due as taxes payable under the Act and like amounts levied as penalty for the period from April 2005 to August 2006. The impugned order at Annexure-D is purported to be one passed under Section 52(1) read with Section 38(5) and Section 9(2) in respect of the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 but all the same invoking a special power under Section 38(5) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Submission of Shri Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the order passed under Section 38(5) of the Act though is one appealable under the provisions of the Act, is nevertheless questioned here on the ground that the respondent-Officer lacks jurisdiction to invoke the power under Section 38(5); that there was absolutely no justification for the Respondent to pass an order of this nature, particularly when the Petitioner has been filing its returns promptly and has been paying whatever taxes are payable; that the returns filed are all deemed to be assessed under the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Act; that in case if any discrepancy/incorrectness is found, the Assessing Officer should have exercised his powers invoking Section 38(1)(b) of the Act and corrected the Assessment and at any rate, there was absolutely no need or justification for invoking the powers under Section 38(5) of the Act, as this is a special provision which is available for an accelerated assessment in respect of such dealers from whom it may become difficult or impossible to realize the taxes later. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that unless the fact situation exists for invoking the power under Section 38(5), it cannot be invoked for any other situation, even assuming that there was a mis-declaration and therefore, the order is bad in law. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to take notice and the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to make available the records. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to take notice and the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to make available the records. The provisions of Section 38(1) and (5) of the Act read as under : "38. Assessment of Tax. - (1) Every dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed to tax based on the return filed by him under Section 35, except in cases where the Commissioner may notify the dealer of any requirement of production of accounts before the prescribed authority in support of a return filed for any period and such authority shall proceed to assess such dealer - (a) on the basis of the return filed where he is satisfied that the return filed is correct and complete; or (b) to the best of its judgment, where the return filed appears to be incorrect or incomplete, after giving the dealer an opportunity of showing cause against such assessment in writing and any additional tax assessed shall be paid within ten days from the date of service of such assessment on the dealer. xxx (5) The prescribed authority on any evidence showing a liability to tax coming to its notice may issue a protective assessment in the case of a dealer registered under this Act or a dealer liable to be registered under this Act, if the prescribed authority has reason to believe that such dealer will fail to pay any tax, penalty or interest so assessed or imposed or payable and such tax, penalty or interest shall become payable forthwith. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where a dealer is a body corporate and has more than one place of business, Commissioner, may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and with the consent of the dealer, treat each of such places of business as a separate unit for the purposes of levy, assessment and collection of tax and thereupon all the provisions of this Act regarding registration, fling of returns, assessment and collection of tax, shall apply as if each of such places of business is a separate unit". A reading of this provision indicates that, this is a power available to a prescribed Authority to pass what is known as Protective Assessment Order in situations where it is found that the Assessee is one, who is likely to go away or is one from whom it may become impossible thereafter to recover the taxes in question. Learned Additional Government Advocate who has produced the record on perusing submits that there is no reasoning recorded to the effect that the Petitioner is either attempting to evade any payment of taxes or taking steps to escape from the reach of law though there was an attempt to evade payment of the proper taxes payable by the Petitioner, that the Petitioner having deliberately and intentionally filed incorrect or incomplete returns, the acts of the concerned officer is justified in invoking the power under the provisions. A situation of this nature could have been set right even by exercising the power under Section 38(1)(b) by the Assessing Officer himself. As it is noticed that the Petitioner is a dealer for some duration and no such allegation or attributes having been found that the Petitioner is one who may get away from the reach of law, it was not proper to have invoked the power under Section 38(5) which is meant for a special situation and particularly the present action being not for such purpose even as indicated from the record and there being no reasoning recorded for invoking the power under Section 38(5) of the Act, the impugned action is not sustainable. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order. It is made clear that it is open to the Respondent - Authority under the VAT Act, to take such action as is permitted in law as against the Petitioner for whatever follies committed or mis-declarations the Petitioner might have furnished. Rule issued and made absolute. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file her memo of appearance within four weeks.