ORDER Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Advocate appearing for respondents. Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order passed by first respondent dated 6-7-2011 produced at Annexures-Y, Z, A1 and A2 respectively whereunder assessment orders have been passed on 6-3-2011 by determining the tax payable. 2. In the normal course, this Court would have refused to interfere with the orders passed by first respondent on the ground of alternate remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner. However, factual matrix in the present case has persuaded me to take a different view for the reasons stated herein below: Petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the operation of extraction of oil from rice bran, soya bean seeds and oil cakes and selling the same. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 annual returns in Form 4 was filed by the petitioner by claiming deductions in respect of the products that have already said to have suffered tax in its original identity. Assessment orders came to be passed on 29-5-2004 for the assessment year 2000-2001, 25-4-2003 for the assessment year 2001-02, 29-5-2006 for the assessment year 2002-2003 and on 7-6-2006 for the assessment year 2003-2004 by holding that residue of rice bran and soya bean seeds and oil cakes after extraction of oil is also exigible to sales tax as it came to be treated as different commodity. Rectification applications were filed by the petitioner by relying upon various circulars issued by the Departments and the judgments of this Court on the issue contending that once original product has suffered tax, its residue cannot be taxed once again. Said applications for rectification came to be rejected by order dated 22-10-2008 (for the assessment year 2000-2001), 19-11-2008 (for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004) and re-rectification orders on 9-11-2009 for the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. On the basis of assessment orders, demand notices came to be issued and also a petition under Section 13(3)(b) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for recovery was also filed before jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment orders and rejection of rectification applications, petitioner approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 7617 to 7620 of 2011. On the basis of assessment orders, demand notices came to be issued and also a petition under Section 13(3)(b) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for recovery was also filed before jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment orders and rejection of rectification applications, petitioner approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 7617 to 7620 of 2011. This Court by order dated 23-2-2011 allowed the writ petitions and directed the writ petitioner to appear before the respondent-authority and to seek for reassessment. The order passed by this Court reads as under: Hence, petitions are allowed. It is for the petitioner to appear before the respondent-authority seeking for reassessment. The respondent-authority shall entertain the appeal after condoning the delay and pass orders in accordance with law, within one month thereafter. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, assessment orders came to be passed on 6-7-2011 for the above referred assessment years vide Annexures-Y, Z, A1 and A2, by holding that residue of rice bran, soya bean seeds and oil cakes after extraction of oil is liable to sales tax as it is a different commodity and proceeded to levy penalty also. 4. Though learned Government Advocate attempted to defend the said order, he was fair enough to state that judgments relied upon by the assessee filed along with his letter dated 21-6-2011 has not been discussed in the assessment order passed on 6-7-2011. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that rice bran has already been subjected to tax and rice bran and oil being one and the same commodity as held in W.P. No. 25722 of 1998 and several judgments passed by this Court, Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of these judgments into consideration and same not having been taken into consideration and mechanically order having been passed, petitioner had approached this Court on the earlier occasion in W.P. Nos. 7617 to 7620 of 2011 and as such direction came to be issued to Assessing Officer to redo the assessment and Assessing Officer ought to have examine the law laid by this Court and should have applied the same to facts on had. He would also contend that when matter having been remanded to the Assessing Officer, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to delve upon the issue on hand before him and pass suitable orders thereon. 5. He would also contend that when matter having been remanded to the Assessing Officer, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to delve upon the issue on hand before him and pass suitable orders thereon. 5. Perusal of the impugned orders would clearly indicate that there was no such exercise undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Assessee/petitioner had filed a letter dated 21-6-2011 before the Assessing Officer enclosing the copies of the orders passed by this Court and has contended same is applicable to the facts on hand. The assessment orders (Annexures-Y, Z, A1 and A2) dated 6-7-2011 do not indicate about consideration of these judgments. There is no discussion as to how the said judgments are inapplicable to petitioner's claim. It is for this precise reason this Court had set aside the assessment orders passed earlier. Even now in the impugned orders no such exercise has been undertaken by Assessing Officer. In that view of the matter, assessment orders dated 6-7-2011 - Annexures-Y, Z, A1 and A2 cannot be sustained particularly in the background of the direction issued by this Court earlier on 23-2-2011 in W.P. Nos. 7617 to 7620 of 2011 and same is liable to be quashed and matter requires to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders afresh. Hence, following order: i. Writ petitions are hereby allowed. ii. Assessment orders dated 6-7-2011 passed by first respondent at Annexures-Y, Z, A1 and A2 are hereby set aside. iii. Matter is remitted back to first respondent for passing assessment orders afresh. iv. Petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer on 10-6-2013 without waiting for any further notice from first respondent. v. Assessing Officer-first respondent shall examine the issue afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made earlier and pass orders by taking into consideration judgments rendered by this Court which have been relied upon by the petitioner and enclosed along with its reply letter dated 21-6-2011 (Annexure-V). vi. All contentions are kept open. vii. First respondent shall pass orders within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner i.e., on or before 22-7-2013. viii. Parties to bear their respective costs. Ordered accordingly.