ORDER B.S. Patil J.—Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer. In these writ petitions petitioner is calling in question the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, (Audit) - 6.6, DVO-6, Peenya, Bangaloreunder Section 39(1), 72(2) and 36 of the Karnataka Value Added lax, 2003 (for short, 'the Act') vide Annexure-K and the consequential demand notices issued. 2. By the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee company was liable to pay tax at 12.5% on the sale of bottles along with interest on the balance output tax due and payable from the date of its non-payment till the date of quantification of the taxes payable by the assessee company. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that though there is an appeal provided against the impugned order, petitioner is entitled to approach this Court as the order passed by the Assessing Officer is directly contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 and in gross violation of the mandate contained in Section 4(2) of the Act. 4. The facts involved in the case necessary for the purpose of examining whether the matter is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court referred to supra and therefore the petitioner is not liable to be driven to the appellate remedy can be usefully stated as under: According to the petitioner, it had entered into an agreement with Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited (for snort, 'KSBCL') on 21.08.2004. Under the said agreement, the petitioner sold beer which was to be supplied in bottles to the KSBCL. The KSBCL is the sole distributor of liquor in the State of Karnataka. One of the conditions of the agreement for which the attention of the Court is drawn is that the KSBCL would make deposit towards the bottle and undertook to return the bottles within one month. In the event of failure by the KSBCL to return the bottles within one month, the same shall be forfeited by the petitioner. The relevant clause in the tax invoice reads as under: 15. In the event of failure by the KSBCL to return the bottles within one month, the same shall be forfeited by the petitioner. The relevant clause in the tax invoice reads as under: 15. All bottles and crates are the property of the company and the same should be returned to the company's factory within 30 days from the date of supply of beer. Security deposit collected by the company on these bottles and crates will be refunded to the customers after inspection of these empty bottles and crates to the extent that the same are in good condition. Further, if the empty bottles and crates are not returned within the stipulated period the deposit collected on the same shall be forfeited. Petitioner filed its return for the tax period April, 2009 to March, 2010 claiming exemption on the entire receipts/turnover on the ground that the same represented sale of alcoholic liquor and was exempted in terms of Entry 34 of First Schedule 10 the Act. The exemption provided in Entry 34 of First Schedule applies to beer. It reads as under: 34. Liquor including Beer, Fenny, Liqueur and Wine 5. According to the petitioner, the returns were deemed to have been accepted as per Section 38(1) of the Act. That being the position, petitioner's business premises was visited on 06.07.2011. Pursuant whereof, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to treat the amounts charged and collected as deposits towards bottles and shown separately in the Tax Invoice as representing sale price of the bottles under an independent contract of sale of the said botiles. Petitioner filed its objections stating that in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, no tax was leviable as the rate applicable to packing material shall be the same as that of the goods contained in the packing material. Therefore, beer being exempted under Entry 34 of the First Schedule of the Act toe bottles which constituted the container or the packing material containing the beer would also be exempted in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. Petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 . However, the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order levying tax on the amounts collected as bottle deposit. 6. Petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 . However, the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order levying tax on the amounts collected as bottle deposit. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate and carefully perused the relevant provisions including Section 4(2) of the Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 On which strong reliance is placed by the petitioner. 7. In the impugned order, the respondent - Assessing Officer has proceeded to hold that in the Tax Invoices raised for sale of bottles in respect of KSBCL, the assessee company has shown the cost of beer together with excise duty and additional excise duty apart from separately charging and collecting Rs.. 3/- per bottle in which beer was sold. The said amount of Rs.. 3/- charged for bottle which has been shown as 'bottle deposit' in the Tax Invoice raised was over and above the cost of beer and therefore it was charged as per the agreement entered into by the assessee company with the KSBCL. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that there were two distinct and separate contracts of sale; one for sale of beer and the other for sale of bottle. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that this finding of the Assessing Officer holding that there was an independent contract of sale and bottles is misconceived and is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Act. Section 4(2) of the Act reads as under: Where goods sold or purchased are contained in containers or are packed in any packing material liable to tax under this Act, the rate of tax applicable to taxable turnover of such containers or packing materials shall, whether the price of the containers or packing materials is charged for separately or not, be the same as the rate of tax applicable to such goods so contained or packed, and where such goods sold or purchased ore exempt from tax under the Act the containers or packing materials shall also be exempt. 9. 9. Based on the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the sale of bottles and sale of liquor, in the instant case, are independent sales not taking place at the same time. He urges that the agreement entered into by the assessee company with the KSBCL provided for separate rating of bottles. He points out that in paragraph - 2.4 of the agreement, the assessee company is entitled to receive the amount for the quantity of liquor only and the bottles are not part of the sale consideration as per the Tax Invoices and the agreement. He further contends that in terms of Rules 2 - AE of the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties & Fees) Rules, 1968, the assessee company declares and claims deduction on 'bottle deposit' to avail exemption from the levy of additional duty. He also contends that if the sale of beer and bottles are one and the same, then the manufacturer of the same has to pay additional excise duly equal to the value of the bottles. In the light of this and having regard to the conditions incorporated in the agreement, be contends that sale of bottle takes place at a later date as per the terms printed on the reverse side of the Tax Invoices. Therefore, if the KSBCL failed to return the bottles after the expiry of 30 days, the deposit so collected shall stand forfeited and recognised as income from the sale of bottles. For this reason, he contends that the parties had intended between themselves to transfer the property in bottles for consideration independent of the goods packed and sold therein. 10. In the light of the above stand taken by the learned Additional Government Advocate and the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer. I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in reappreciating the nature of the clauses contained in the agreement entered between the petitioner and the KSBCL and then test the sale by applying the provisions contained under Section 4(2) of the Act. The scope of appeal that is available to the petitioner as provided under Section 62 of the Act is wide and comprehensive. The scope of appeal that is available to the petitioner as provided under Section 62 of the Act is wide and comprehensive. Petitioner will be entitled to agitate all these aspects and the Appellate Authority will be under an obligation to examine the matter in detail by analysing, interpreting and understanding the nature of the transaction by referring to the conditions in the contract. 11. Insofar as the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 , the facts involved disclose that the appellant - Premier Breweries had sold Indian-made Foreign liquors in bottles packed in cardboard canons. As the appellant charged its customers separately for the liquor and the cartons, the cartons were held taxable at 8% as per Entry 7 to Schedule I of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Deputy Commissioner, exercising his revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the cartons was taxable at the rate the liquor was taxable viz. @ 50%. The view of the Deputy Commissioner was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Before the Apex Court, the assessee contended that since the appellant charged, and the customers paid, for the liquor and cartons separately, in the presence of Entry 97 in Schedule I to the Act prescribing a specific rate of tax for cartons, the value of the containers could not be included in the value of the liquor for the purpose of calculating the assessee's turnover. The assessee further contended that the cartons were only secondary containers and could not therefore be included in the turnover of beer. Dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held that the underlying idea behind Sections 5(5) and (6) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was that packed goods were to be taxed as composite units. In calculating the turnover of the goods, the turnover of the containers will have to be included. It will not make any difference, if the containers were shown to have been sold and charged separately. When the goods are exempted from tax, no tax is leviable on the containers This will be the position even when the goods and the containers are sold and charged separately. 12. It will not make any difference, if the containers were shown to have been sold and charged separately. When the goods are exempted from tax, no tax is leviable on the containers This will be the position even when the goods and the containers are sold and charged separately. 12. This ratio laid down by the Apex Court in connection with the provisions contained in Kerala General Sales Tax Act is sought to be distinguished by the learned Additional Government Advocate stating that there was no collection of bottle deposit and that the assessee did not claim any deduction of bottle deposit under any statutory provisions to avail exemption from levy of duty and that there was no mention of any forfeiture clause for non-return of bottles and non-refund of deposits. He also points out that the packing materials namely cardboard cartons had been sold with the liquor in the facts of the case before the Apex Court and that the assessee pleaded before the Apex Court that the rate of tax applicable to packing materials was to be applied and not the rate at which the liquor was taxable. 13. He further points out that the decision rendered in the case of Kalyani Breweries Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & Others - 1997 (107) STC 190 would apply to the facts of the present case and therefore this is not a case for interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction permitting the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the respective contentions, I find that this is not a fit case for exercising writ jurisdiction permitting the petitioner to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. The facts involved in the present case have to be reappreciated and the process of reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer has to be subjected to further scrutiny by the Appellate Authority before applying the provisions of law contained under Section 4(2) of the Act and the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 . Therefore, without venturing into any such exercise to opine one way or the other with regard to the applicability of the ratio laid down in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 . Therefore, without venturing into any such exercise to opine one way or the other with regard to the applicability of the ratio laid down in the case of Premier Breweries Vs. State of Kerala, JT (1997) 10 SC 226 to the facts of the present case, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed keeping the contentions of the petitioner open to be urged before the Appellate Authority. 15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to other judgments in support of his contention that alternative remedy cannot be a bar for exercising the writ jurisdiction and has invited the attention of the Court in this regard to the judgments m the case of Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, AIR 1973 SC 1362 and in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd.,Calcutta and Another Vs. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1962 SC 1893 . As adverted to above, the facts involved in the case, the nature of the agreement and the nature of the conditions agreed by the petitioner - company and the KSBCL is required to be analysed and reappreciated by the Appellate Authority before recording, any finding on the contentions urged by the petitioner. This is not a case of lack of jurisdiction or where principles of natural justice have been violated by the original authority so that the appellate remedy can be by-passed. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the need for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, 30 days time is granted to the petitioner from today to file necessary appeal with an observation that until then, the respondent - authority shall not precipitate the matter by initiating any coercive measure.