D.V Shylendra Kumar, J.:— All these writ petitions are by the assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka. Value Added Tax Act, 2003 who have been assessed to certain tax liability under the provisions of this Act by the assessing authorities either at the first instance or by reopening of the deemed assessment.

2. The petitioners are basically aggrieved by the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority and have questioned the legality of the assessment orders and consequential demands on several grounds. In the case of writ petitioners in W.P Nos. 1984 of 2008, 7622 of 2008, 727 to 732 of 2009 and 746 to 814 of 2009, it is contended that the assessing authorities have in effect subjected to tax the transaction which is more in the nature of a service transaction, that in respect of the very transaction the authorities under the Finance Act, 1994, have/assessed the petitioners to service tax under the provisions of this Act; that it is settled law, when once the particular activity is identified as a service activity, it is not an activity attracting the provisions of the State sales tax enactment, that there is no element of sale involved in respect of the very activity of service and therefore the authorities under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act are [basically wrong in calling upon the petitioner to pay sales tax in respect of the very activity. It is submitted on the strength of the law declared by the Supreme Court that service and sales cannot co-exist and if the authorities under the Central Finance Act, 1994, had already identified the activity as in the nature of a service and had subjected that activity to levy of tax under the Finance Act, 1994, there cannot be a further levy under the respective sales tax enactment by the State legislators and the assessment order is bad in law and has to be set aside.

3. The petitioners have also contended that the petitioners have approached this court invoking the writ jurisdiction and by-passing the statutory remedy for the reason that the law is well-settled on the questions arising in these writ petitions.

4. In so far as W.P Nos. 2647 to 2650 of 2009 are concerned, the petitioner is actually owned by the Government of India and it is contended on the strength of the law laid down and declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95; [2006] 2 STR 161 that the kind of activity carried on by the petitioner who virtually acts as a limb of Union of India, Department of Space is an activity never in the nature of sale of goods, but, more in the nature of service either to the consumer or to the Union of India provided by this petitioner and therefore no part of their activity, attracts the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act and therefore the assessment order passed in respect of this petitioner is an order not sustainable in law.

5. It is contended that for resolving such questions as is pointed out by the Supreme Court in the very decision, are questions which are required to be examined by the High Court; that such questions cannot be relegated to the assessment authorities and the statutory authorities. Therefore, this is a fit case for examination in writ jurisdiction. Such are the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Darius B Shroff, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 727 to 732 of 2009 and 746 to 814 of 2009 on behalf of M/s. A. Rama Venkatesh Vikram and Alur and Sri K.G Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P Nos. 2647 to 2650 of 2009.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also vehemently urged that these are all fit matters, which merit examination in writ jurisdiction and therefore availability of statutory remedies cannot come in the way of petitioners seeking relief in writ jurisdiction; that the rule of writ court, not interfering when statutory remedies are available is not a strict or strait-jacket rule and it is therefore submitted that the present cases must be examined by the High Court on the strength of the authority of law as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95; [2006] 2 STR 161.

7. Notices had been issued to the respondents and the respondents-State and its officials are represented by Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate-General along with Mr. Shivayogiswamy, learned HCGP. Learned Additional Advocate-General would submit-that the present cases particularly in the case of writ petitioner in W.P Nos. 2647 to 2650 of 2009, which is by a Government of India Company, the subject-matter of the assessment order was the activity of leasing a part of transponders located on a satellite in space; that it is not as though any part of any service provided by the petitioner is sought to be assessed under the impugned assessment order; as to whether the activity attracts liability for payment of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is a matter, which is required to be examined on facts and by, applying the relevant law; that the law declared in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC); [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC); [2006] 2 STR 161 (SC), does not necessarily apply and cover the Case of the petitioner, etc. It is also submitted that having regard to the nature of the factually disputed aspects, even assuming that the petitioners have any merit in these cases it is necessary that the petitioners should avail of the statutory appeal remedy; that examination of all such questions in writ jurisdiction is not desirable.

8. Insofar as the writ petitioners in other cases are concerned, submission of the learned Additional Advocate-General is that the authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act are not seeking to levy tax on any part of any service rendered by the petitioner, which may be otherwise liable to tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. But have levied tax only on such part of the activity, which constitutes a sale of goods as is Under the definition and within the scope of articles 366, 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India and therefore the goods do not necessarily involve the question of jurisdiction and it is not as though the statutory authorities are incompetent to examine such question and observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, [2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95 : [2006] 2 STR 161, may not be applicable to the present cases.

9. In this regard, learned Additional Advocate-General would also draw my attention to the order of the Supreme Court opining that in matters involving disputed facts and law also, it is not advisable for the High Court to embark to give an opinion to one away from the other even before the matter is examined at different levels of the statutory authorities and in the light of such view taken by the Supreme Court, the present cases should not be examined in writ jurisdiction. But the petitioner may be relegated to avail of their statutory remedies available under the Act itself.

10. While it may be true that all these writ petitions may involve even complicated questions of law for a satisfactory resolve of all such questions of law, factual matrix of the cases will have to be examined whether by this court or by the authorities. Particularly, the law on this aspect being in a formative stage and in respect of new activities, as a result of advancement and developments in science and technology and their applications in the commercial field, for resolving questions of law arising in such context and even questions arising in the context of taxation statute, it will be very (sic) to avail the appeal remedies and necessary all aspects of their development in the filed of science and technology, the commercial application, the nature of the activities and as to under what area they can be classified in the background of either the sales tax enactment of the State Legislature or if there is an Overlapping area, in the context of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, seeking to levy tax on service, are all matters which are to be essentially examined by the authorities in the first instance, that such matters are required to be gone through the hierarchy of the various authorities provided under the respective enactment and can reach this court in a manner provided under the respective enactment.

11. An examination of such question even at the threshold by this court bypassing the statutory authorities, in my view will not be a satisfactory examination of the questions involved and it may result in an inadequate examination. An examination on assuming certain facts even before it is fully settled or finalised could also lead to the possibility of law being not developed in a satisfactory manner.

12. When the statutory provisions provide for appellate authority and ultimately ah avenue is provided by the statute itself to bring the questions to this court also, when the question of law is still required to be resolved, in a proper manner by this court, it is not at all desirable to examine these questions under the writ jurisdiction of articles 226 and 227. of the Constitution of India. It is for this reason, I am not inclined to examine these matters in writ jurisdiction, but Would relegate the petitioners to avail of the statutory remedies and pursue their relief before the statutory authorities.

13. Sri Shroff, learned Senior Counsel, Would submit that even when this court would relegate the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy, which the petitioners would definitely avail of, nevertheless some safeguards have to be provided in respect of the liability arising and foisted on them under the provisions of the State Act and by the State authorities particularly as the petitioners are facing the unpleasant prospect of being taxed both by the Central Act, Finance Act of 1994 as the service provider and also being subjected to tax by the State sales tax authorities and when the liability can be under only one of the two enactments, a liability fastened on the same activity under both enactments will virtually amount to levying a tax, which is not permitted at least by one of the authorities and would be a great financial strain and burden on the, petitioners. It is therefore, the submission of learned counsel that as had been laid down by the Supreme Court in one earlier situation, the authorities under the Kamataka Value Added Tax Act, may issue notices and keep the matter pending or even if they have to finalise assessment they be directed not to enforce the demand that would be a satisfactory arrangement when the matters can be examined by the appellate authorities.

14. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate-General, would respond to the point, the State authorities have been levying tax only in respect of the liability that arises under the State Act and on an activity which can be levied tax under the Act and it is not as though/the State authorities are trying to subject to tax, an activity, which is in the nature of service.

15. This again is a question, which is mixed up with facts and law and insofar as the law under the Karnataka Value-Added Tax Act is concerned, it is essentially a matter to be examined by the authorities to be resolved.

16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P Nos. 727 to 732 of 2009 and 746 to 814 of 2009 that having deposited a part of the liability under the Sales. Tax Act, this petitioner may be put on like terms regarding payment of tax liability during the pendency of the appeal.

17. Learned Additional Advocate-General would submit, that if the petitioners have already deposited 50 per cent of the disputed amount, subject to the order, they may be directed to deposit another 50 per cent of the balance and for the remaining portion security to the satisfaction of the authorities may be provided. This request is opposed by Sir Shroff, learned Senior Counsel.

18. The condition to be imposed on the Writ petitioners cannot be uniform in all situations. Even the Supreme Court has observed that the condition should be in the interest of larger public revenue and to safeguard the interest of the petitioners also.

19. So far as W.P Nos. 727 to 732 of 2009 and 746 to 814 of 2009 are concerned, if the petitioner deposits 50 per cent of the demand, if not already deposited, of the disputed amount and furnishes security to the satisfaction of the authority, for the balance, the enforcement of the demand may be stayed pending adjudication of the appeal, which they can how avail of by filing appeals before the appellate authority within four weeks from today. It is open to the petitioner to explain the delay in preferring the appeals by pointing out the pendency of these matters before this court. It is open to the other petitioners to take benefit of this order of to move the appellate authority for any conditional interim order.

20. If the petitioners file the appeal within four weeks, the authorities may examine the appeal on merits and accept any explanation for condoning the delay, taking note of the pendency of these writ petitions till now before this court.