Jayant Patel, J.

These appeals are directed against order dated 03/02/2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions whereby, the Learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order, quashed the order passed by the first respondent-authority and issued further directions.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2006, respondent applied for composition of tax under Section 15 r/w Rule 137 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [hereinafter, referred to as "the KVAT Act"]. The said application was processed and ultimately, on 20/12/2006, certificate came to be issued and a copy of the said certificate is at Annexure "A", produced in the writ petition. On 02/07/2010 roughly after a period of 3½ years, the first respondent issued show-cause notice under Section 39(1) of the Act, proposing to levy tax at the rate of 12.5%, for the assessment period of 2005-06, stating that the respondent was not involved in the activity of works contract and therefore, reassessment was to be made. On 10/09/2010, petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice and prayed to drop the notice. On 29/09/2010, the first respondent proceeded to pass the order whereby, the reassessment was made and the tax was assessed. The respondent herein challenged the said decision of the reassessment by the first respondent by filing writ petitions before this Court. Learned Single Judge found that as per the due payment made by the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 13172-73/2010, paving bricks are included in Entry-2 of Schedule-III and the liability to pay tax would be at the rate of 4% only and not 12.5% and therefore, the order for re-assessment including the tax of 12.5% were set-aside and consequently, allowed the writ petition. Under the circumstances, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeals.

3. We have heard Sri. K.M. Shivayogi Swamy, Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for appellants and Smt. Vani H., Learned Counsel appearing for respondent.

4. It was contended by Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-State that as per the view taken by this Court in W.A.No.5798/2011 and connected matters decided on 23/03/2016, paving bricks/blocks are not included in Entry-2 of Schedule-IEI and therefore, the liability to pay tax will be at the rate of 12.5% and not 4% as held by Learned Single Judge. It has been submitted that in the present order of reassessment, the tax was proposed to be recovered at 12.5% and hence, the order of the Learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside and the reassessment already made by the first appellant be maintained.

5. Whereas, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-the original petitioner, contended that merely because this Court has taken a view that liability to pay tax on paving bricks/blocks would be 4% to 12.5%, would not be sufficient to maintain the order of reassessment. It is submitted that respondent had opted for a scheme whereby, payment of tax was by way of composition as provided under Section 15 of the Act. The application was made for such purpose and the competent authority being satisfied about the availability of composition of tax had also issued certificate on 20/12/2006. As per Learned Counsel for respondent, unless and until the said certificate is cancelled, there was no question of reassessment to be made de hors the composition scheme. She also submitted that even if such certificate was to be cancelled, the opportunity of hearing was required to be given specifically on the aspect as to why the certificate should not be cancelled but no such notice has been given nor any opportunity whatsoever was given on such aspects. She therefore, submitted that the relief as prayed for in the petition for quashing of order of reassessment made by the authority ought to have been granted though it is a different matter that the Learned Single Judge has granted relief on the other aspects and the aspect of cancellation