Judgment :- 1. Having heard the learned counsel, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned, the core question for decision making is whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka), Bangalore, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 59(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short ‘KVAT Act’ could invalidate the clarification issued in the petitioner’s case, by the authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, under Section 60, without having invoked the Revisional jurisdiction under Section 64(2) or the remedy of an appeal under Section 66 of the said Act? Sec.59(4) of the KVAT Act reads thus:- “59. Instructions to Subordinate Authorities: (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Commissioner may, on his own motion or on an application by a registered dealer liable to pay tax under the Act, if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the work of assessments and collection of revenue, clarify the rate of tax payable under this Act in respect of goods liable to tax under the Act, and all officers and persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such clarification. Sec. 60 of the KVAT Act reads thus:- “60. Clarification and Advance Rulings.- (1) The Commissioner may constitute an ‘Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings’, consisting of three Additional Commissioners, to clarify the rate of tax in respect of any goods or the exigibility to tax of any transaction under the Act. (2) Any registered dealer seeking clarification or advanced ruling under this Section shall make an application to the Authority in such form and accompanied by proof of payment of such fee, paid in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) No officer or any other authority of the Department or the Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to decide any issue in respect of which an application has been made by an applicant under this Section. (4) The order of the authority shall be binding only on the applicant who seeks clarification and only in respect of the goods or transaction in relation to which a clarification is sought and also only on all the subordinate officers. (4) The order of the authority shall be binding only on the applicant who seeks clarification and only in respect of the goods or transaction in relation to which a clarification is sought and also only on all the subordinate officers. (5) The order of the Authority under this Section shall be binding as aforesaid unless there is a change in law or facts on the basis of which the order was passed. (6) Where the authority finds, on a representation made to it by any officer or otherwise, that an order passed by it was obtained by the applicant by fraud or mis-representation of facts, it may, by order, declare such order to be void ab initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act shall apply to the applicant as if such order had never been made. (7) Subject to the provisions of Section 66, every order passed under this Section shall be final.” 2. There is no dispute that under Section 60 of the KVAT Act, the authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, for short ‘Authority’ was constituted by the Commissioner and in the petitioner’s case a clarification over the rate of tax in respect of certain items of goods which the petitioner deals in, was issued by order dt. 7.11.2006 Annexure-C. There is also no dispute that the Commissioner did not either choose to question the clarification in a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 64 or file an appeal to this court under Section 66 of the KVAT Act, by reason of which, the clarification Annexure-C is final and binding on the petitioner and the revenue in terms of subsection (7) of Section 60 of the KVAT Act. It is also not in dispute that yet another dealer M/s Commercial and Technical (CATS), Bengaluru having sought clarification the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under Section 59(4) of KVAT Act by order dated 24.5.2010 opined contrary to the clarification of the Authority in its order Annexure-C. 3. It is also not in dispute that yet another dealer M/s Commercial and Technical (CATS), Bengaluru having sought clarification the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under Section 59(4) of KVAT Act by order dated 24.5.2010 opined contrary to the clarification of the Authority in its order Annexure-C. 3. Regard being had to Section 60 relating to clarification and advance rulings in respect of any registered dealer to be deemed to be final and binding on the petitioner and the respondent unless the Commissioner constituting such authority seeks to invalidate the same by way of revision under Subsection (2) of Section 64 or an appeal under Section 66 of the KVAT Act, the clarification of the authority by the order Annexure-‘C’ in the case of petitioner, a registered dealer, is binding on the commissioner. 4. Section 59(4) of the Act under Chapter VI provides for issue of instructions to subordinate authorities. Subsection (4) invests in the Commissioner a jurisdiction, on his own motion or on an application by a registered dealer liable to pay tax under the KVAT Act, if he considers it necessary, or expedient to do so for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the work of assessment and collection of revenue, clarify the rate of tax payable under the KVAT Act in respect of the goods liable to tax and all officers and employees shall observe and follow such clarifications. 5. It is not the case of the Commissioner that petitioner made an application for issue of clarification under Subsection (4) of Section 59, obviously because the petitioner had obtained a clarification Annexure-C, from the ‘authority’, and therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-revenue that the clarification impugned is based upon a request made by the petitioner is but a specious plea. 6. The further contention of the learned counsel for the revenue that another dealer M/s Commercial and Technical (CATS), Bengaluru, dealing in goods identical to that of the petitioner, having sought for clarification under Subsection (4) of Section 59, the Commissioner by order dt. 24.5.2010 took a view contrary to the clarification, Annexure – C of the ‘Authority’ and hence, the clarification Annexure – C is deemed to be invalidated is also a specious plea. Section 59(4) does not provide for annulling clarification Annexure-C while Section 60(7), provides for methods by which the clarification could be annulled and not otherwise. 7. 24.5.2010 took a view contrary to the clarification, Annexure – C of the ‘Authority’ and hence, the clarification Annexure – C is deemed to be invalidated is also a specious plea. Section 59(4) does not provide for annulling clarification Annexure-C while Section 60(7), provides for methods by which the clarification could be annulled and not otherwise. 7. If M/s Commercial and Technical (CATS), Bangalore, a dealer, has obtained clarification under Subsection (4) of Section 59, that cannot bind the petitioner since what is binding upon the petitioner is Annexure-C clarification of the ‘Authority’. 8. The Commissioner appears to have misdirected himself without noticing the provisions of Section 60 of KVAT Act more appropriately sub-section 7 providing for remedial measures over the clarification Annexure – C hence the conclusion arrived at in the order Annexure-A is illegal and one without jurisdiction. 9. It is elsewhere said that when a certain thing is permitted to be done, it must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 10. The last of the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue that alternative relief in the writ petition that Annexure-A order dt.8.10.2012 may be made prospective from 24.05.2010 in view of the order dt. 24.05.2010 is yet another specious plea. Having opined that the clarification by order Annexure-A is illegal and one without jurisdiction, question of alternative plea does not arise. The petition is allowed. Order dt. 8.10.2012 Annexure-C of the Commissioner is quashed. Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the clarification Annexure-C of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings. It is needless to state that in the light of Subsection (6) of Section 60, it is for the authority to initiate action if it thinks it is necessary and not for the Commissioner to initiate any such action. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.