ORDER : 1. Admit. 2. Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned AGA appears for the respondents and waives notice. 3. As all appeals arise from the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions, they are being considered simultaneously. 4. The relevant facts are that the appellant-assessee is a Civil Works Contractor engaged in asphalting of roads. For the period of 2014-2015, he executed the contract of asphalting of roads for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP for short) and other bodies. He was acting as Sub-Contractor of C.T. Raju, Principal Contractor registered under Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KVAT Act’ for short). The Principal Contractor C.T. Raju, filed returns in Form No. VAT-120 declaring the works contract turnover and paid tax thereon. The appellant opted for composition of assessment and filed returns in Form VAT-120 and also submitted audited statement in Form No. VAT-240. The said returns are deemed as assessed under Section 38(1) of the KVAT Act. As per the audited statement filed the appellant has received sum of Rs.2,30,38,535/- towards execution of the aforesaid subcontracted work and he claimed exemption for the reason that subcontracted work executed had suffered tax by way of TDS made by BBMP and the direct tax payment is already made. However, the first respondent acting on the Circular instructions dated 23.12.2014 issued by the second respondent rejected the exemption claimed by the appellant and passed reassessment order for levy of tax, penalty and interest. Under the circumstances, the appellant preferred petition before this Court with prayers at paragraph 16 of the said petition which read as under: (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or directions in the nature of certiorari and quash the tax of Rs.9,21,540, penalty of Rs.92,154 and interest of Rs.3,51,878, all totaling Rs.13,65,572 levied on subcontract receipts of Rs.2,30,38,535 in the impugned reassessment order bearing No. CAS No. KVAT-253827324 dated 18.8.2016 as in Annexure-A passed by the first respondent, as lacking in jurisdiction and as opposed to law, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or directions in the nature of certiorari and quash the instructions issued in paragraph 8 of the Circular bearing No. 21/2014-15 dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure-D) issued by the second respondent to the effect that “A Sub-Contractor has to pay his tax liability in full irrespective of any TDS done by the contractee while making payments to the main contractor. Therefore the officers of the department are instructed that they should not give credit of TDS amount from the account of the main contractor to that of a Sub-Contractor” as contrary to and as opposed to law, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or directions in the nature of mandamus and declare that the works contract receipts of Rs.2,30,38,535 that has suffered tax by way of TDS and direct payment in the hands of the principal contractor cannot be subjected to tax once again in the hands of the petitioner sub contractor. (iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter found that as there is a remedy available before the appellate forum, he declined to interfere. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 6. We have heard Mr. Keshava Murthy T.N. learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned AGA appearing for the respondents. 7. As recorded by us earlier, the petitions comprise of three prayers. However, it appears that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire matter as if the same is for only prayer at paragraph 16(i). So far as the validity of the Circular and the writ for declaration prayed in paragraphs 16(ii) and 16(iii), there is no discussion by the learned Single Judge at all. 8. It is true that so far as the prayer against the assessment is concerned, the order of the learned Single Judge for not entertaining the petition on the ground of an alternate remedy available may not be said as erroneous in normal circumstances. But, if the reassessment order is based on the Circular which is binding to the assessing authority and the validity of the very Circular was under challenge, the said prayer was required to be considered at earlier point of time. But, if the reassessment order is based on the Circular which is binding to the assessing authority and the validity of the very Circular was under challenge, the said prayer was required to be considered at earlier point of time. Further, whether appropriate writ could be granted declaring that the contract received by Sub-Contractor when had already suffered tax by way of TDS at the hands of the Principal Contractor, for exemption to the Sub-Contractor to that extent on account of avoiding double taxation for the same contract, was also an aspect which could be considered in the prayer at paragraph 16(iii), at earlier point of time. 9. We do not propose to make any observations on the merits of the prayer at paragraphs 16(ii) and 16(iii) whether to be granted or not. But as the aforesaid aspects of consideration of two prayers at paragraphs 16(ii) and 16(iii) are not addressed by the learned Single Judge, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for consideration and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. We may also record that the interference with the assessment order for which the prayer is made at paragraph 16 (i) would essentially depend on whether prayer at paragraphs 16(ii) and 16(iii) are granted or not. Therefore, until the aforesaid questions of validity of the Circular and the taxable liability at the hands of Sub-Contractor, when whole of the contract is already taxed at the hands of Principal Contractor, is decided, the question of assessment cannot be treated as final. Under these circumstances, we also find that the observations made by the learned Single Judge for declining the entertainment of the petitions for prayer at paragraph 16(i) should await until the matter is considered by the learned Single Judge for prayer at paragraph Nos. 16(ii) and 16(iii) and thereafter prayer 16(i) could be considered or simultaneously all the prayers may be considered. 11. Hence the observations made by the learned Single Judge even for prayer 16(i) being in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case needs to be considered afresh, in the light of the observations made by us in the present judgment. 12. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. 12. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respective main writ petitions shall stand restored to the file of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge shall examine the matter in accordance with law taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the present appeals and after hearing both the sides, shall pass appropriate orders. 13. All appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 14. In view of the order passed, I.A. No. 1/2016 does not survive for consideration and accordingly shall stand disposed of.