ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent Commissioner of Commercial Tax Officer, (Audit)3.3, DVO3, Bangalore, seeking to reassess the petitioner and pass reassessment order denying him the benefit of Composition Scheme enacted under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. The petitioner admittedly runs a restaurant serving vegetarian food in Bangalore and opted to pay tax at the composite concessional rate of 4% under Composition Scheme as enacted under Section 15(1) of the Act with effect from 1.4.2015. The impugned re-assessment notice Annexure-A dated 15.6.2015 and consequent order passed vide Annexure-E dated 17.10.2015 and Annexure-F dated 20.10.2015 were based on the ground that during the course of inspection, the investigating authorities had observed that the petitioner assessee effected the purchase of goods i.e. Vitrified Tiles worth Rs.1,69,910/- and Rs.23,375/- as per e-Sugum Nos.1544436804 and 1035063610 during the tax period in question and since they were “goods in stock” there was a violation of the conditions and restrictions imposed under Rules 135 and 144 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 and the petitioner assessee was thus ineligible to continue under the Composition Scheme under Section 15(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and therefore liable to pay the regular rate of tax on the sales/turnover as per Section 3 of the KVAT Act, 2003. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, despite a representation made to the said authority that the Vitrified Tiles were purchased from the State of Gujarat upon payment of Central State Tax, since the said goods were purchased in the course of inter-State trade and were used for laying the floor of the restaurant run by the petitioner assessee, they could not be said to be the “goods in stock” at the time availing the said Composition Scheme vide Rule 135(2) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 and such Vitrified Tiles fixed in the floor became part of the immovable property and since they were not “goods in stock” as such dealt by the assessee in the regular course of business, the prohibition against purchase of goods from outside the State and lying in stock on the date he opts for this composition scheme did not apply to the present case and the benefit of Composition Scheme could not be denied on this ground while invoking the powers of reassessment under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue urged that, any goods purchased from outside the State and lying in stock disentitled the assessee from availing the benefit of the Composition Scheme enacted under Section 15(1) of the Act and since it is a concessional scheme and a concession given by the State to the assessee, the conditions for availing the same have to be strictly construed and complied with by the assessee and since the assessee in the present case apparently purchased the Vitrified Tiles from the State of Gujarat, he violated the conditions of availing the Composition Scheme and therefore the assessee was not entitled to pay the composite concessional rate of tax on the gross turnover of 4%, but on the other hand, he was liable to be reassessed in the regular assessment proceedings and separate tax rates on goods sold were applicable. He therefore prayed that present petition deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that the validity of Section 15(1) of the Act has been upheld by this Court in the case of Taj Mahal Café and others Vs. State of Karnataka and the Writ Appeals are pending before the Division Bench. 5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the records. 6. This Court is not presently concerned with the validity of the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act and the only matter, which arises for consideration by this Court is, the reason for which the assessing authority sought to deny the benefit of the Composition Scheme to the petitioner assessee and whether the Vitrified Tiles purchased by the assessee from the State of Gujarat in the course of interstate trade or commerce are “goods in stock” as envisaged under Rule 135(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Rules, 2005. Rule 135 of the KVAT Rules, 2005 reads thus: “135. Conditions of scheme: A dealer opting to pay tax by way of composition under Section 15, shall satisfy the following conditions: (1) He shall be a dealer registered under the Act or a dealer who has made an application for registration under the Act. (2) He shall not have any goods in stock which are brought from outside the State on the date he opts to pay tax by way of composition and shall not sell any goods brought from outside the State after such date.” 7. (2) He shall not have any goods in stock which are brought from outside the State on the date he opts to pay tax by way of composition and shall not sell any goods brought from outside the State after such date.” 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a restaurant only and is engaged in the business of serving vegetarian food and not engaged in the business of sale of Vitrified Tiles. In the restaurant, the Vitrified Tiles in question were not sold by him in the regular course of business, but were used only for the purpose of flooring of the restaurant premises. When so fixed in the floor, the Vitrified Tiles ofcourse became the part of the immovable property, and it is beyond the common sense and basic commercial prudence to even comprehend that the Vitrified Tiles fixed on the floor of the restaurant could be treated by an assessing authority as the “goods in stock” dealt with by the assessee or sold in the course of regular course of business. The assessing authorities trained and well acquainted with the commercial terms, cannot be allowed to take such perverse views. 8. It is this kind of impractical and hyper technical approach of the assessing authorities which seriously dents the image of the Revenue Departments in our country. While on the one hand the Government is talking about Tax Payers friendly environment in the country, on the other hand these kind of hyper technical view taken by taxing authorities flies in the face, which really shocks the conscience of the Court. 9. The purpose of Composition Scheme is of course to give a benefit of concession to the assessee to pay a composite and concessional rate of tax on the gross turn over and to avoid the hassles of assessment of tax on each item of goods and there is no doubt that certain conditions for availing such benefit can be imposed by legislation or even by the subordinate legislation in the Rules enacted for that purpose. The validity or reasonableness of those conditions is neither in question before this Court nor this Court is called upon to decide the same. But, the question is only as to whether the so called reason assigned in the impugned notice and the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Authority are germane, reasonable, sustainable or not to uphold their action. 10. But, the question is only as to whether the so called reason assigned in the impugned notice and the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Authority are germane, reasonable, sustainable or not to uphold their action. 10. As quoted above, Rule 135(2) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 clearly talks only about goods in the stock which clearly refers to the goods dealt by the assessee in the regular day-to-day business for which he is registered by the Department. These Rules do not intend to cover the goods purchased for construction or being material to be fixed in the building premises of the assessee like the Vitrified Tiles in the present case. In the present case, the Tiles purchased from the State of Gujarat on payment of Central Sales Tax and fixed in the floor of the Restaurant in question, cannot be said to be “goods in stock” while they can definitely be said to be “goods” as such. The exclusion of the “goods in stock” which are brought from outside the State on the date when the assessee opts for the Composition Scheme and the restriction put on him not to sell such goods after that date is obviously not applicable to the facts of the present case. The restriction against sale of such goods which were purchased from outside the State stands complied with in the present case, as it is not the case of the Revenue that the Vitrified Tiles purchased by the assessee from the State of Gujarat in this case, were sold in the course of his business. Therefore, the question of violation of condition as specified under Rule 135(2) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 does not arise in the present case. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent assessing authority has misused his power under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act for reassessment of the assessee in the present case on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order, such impugned order and the notice itself deserve to be quashed by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the respondent assessing authority to the assessee within a period of three months from today.