JUDGMENT : Mr. Neil Hildreth, & Mr. Nikhil Gupta, for Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA for Respondents 1. The petitioner assessee M/s Lease Plan India Private Ltd. has filed this writ petition in this Court on 20/01/2018 aggrieved by the re-assessment order passed by the Respondent-Assessing Authority, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 5.1, Bangalore for the tax period 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 under Section 39 (1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act, 2003' for short). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner assessee has urged before the Court that the following three grounds:- (i) Disallowance of Input Tax Credit: For this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said issue is covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.58917-58928/2016 & connected matters decided on 10/01/2018 (Kirloskar Electric Co.Ltd. and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others). (ii) On Fleet Management Charges: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Fleet Management charges taken from lessees are charged by the assessee Company, which leases out the Motor Vehicles to various persons are exigible to Service Tax under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and the due Service Tax was already paid by the petitioner assessee and therefore the said 'Fleet Management Charges' could not have been included in the value of lease rentals for levy of VAT under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003; and (iii) The Respondent Assessing Authority has grossly erred in making ad hoc additions in the declared turnover of the petitioner assessee, on the ground that in the absence of the assessee maintaining the 'Vehicle Track Register', the lease rentals declared by the petitioner assessee company to have been charged from the lessees are very low and therefore the ad hoc additions to the extent of Rs.25.00/- lakhs was made by the Respondent Assessing Authority in the impugned order. 3. He submitted that maintaining of the 'Vehicle Track Register' is not the statutory requirement under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made there under. 4. 3. He submitted that maintaining of the 'Vehicle Track Register' is not the statutory requirement under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made there under. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner assessee, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition against the re-assessment order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 directly cannot be filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by-passing the effective alternative remedies by way of Appeals available to the assessee under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003. 5. Even if one of the issues as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner assessee is covered by the judgment of this Court or any other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is for the petitioner assessee to raise such contentions supported by such citations before the Appellate Authorities under the KVAT Act, 2003. 6. The law laid down by this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India need not be repetitively reiterated at the instance of the different assessee’s time and over again by the Constitutional Courts. 7. Such judgments if are applicable to the facts of the case before the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authorities, they are bound to be applied by them. But if they have reasons to be assigned by them, for distinguishing the judgments, such Authorities can record appropriate reasons for the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. Any expression on the merits of the contentions raised before this Court in the present case would prejudice the case of the either side, viz. the assessee or the revenue. Therefore, this Court would advisedly desist from expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner assessee. 9. This Court does not find any good and sufficient reasons to allow the petitioner assessee to bypass such alternative remedy provided under the KVAT Act, 2003 and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner assessee. 10. If such an Appeal is filed within 30 days from today, the objection on limitation will not be raised and subject however to the assessee complying with the other conditions for entertaining the Appeal, the appeal may be entertained by the learned Appellate Authority. 11. 10. If such an Appeal is filed within 30 days from today, the objection on limitation will not be raised and subject however to the assessee complying with the other conditions for entertaining the Appeal, the appeal may be entertained by the learned Appellate Authority. 11. With these observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents forthwith.