ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. The decision rendered in this writ shall govern disposal of other two writs of this very petitioner being W.P. nOR. 2364 and 2365 of 2001, as all these three petitions involve identical issues.
2. Challenge in this writ filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to an assessment order dated May 29, 2001 (annexure P1) and an order passed under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Genera] Sales Tax Act, 1958 and also Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act (annexure P2), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, Circle 3, for the period from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
3. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed these assessment orders was that they were passed contrary to earlier remand order passed by higher authorities (revisionary authority). The submission was that time and again, the assessment orders were being set aside by the revisionary authority and directions were given to the assessing authority to make assessment in accordance with the directions so contained in the remand order but the impugned assessment orders are just contrary to the remand order. It is on this basis, learned counsel urged that if an assessment order is passed contrary to the remand order, it becomes an arbitrary one and hence, can be subjected to writ rather than to appeal for its quashing. Learned counsel then made attempts to show on the merits as to how an act of arbitrariness is discernible on facts. Learned counsel placed reliance on [19651 16 STC 380 (Ker), This reference appears to be to [1966] 17 STC 380 (Ker) (M. Appukutty v. Sales Tax Officer).–Ed. [2001] 122 STC 594 (SC) (State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty) and [1999] 115 STC 257 (Kar) (Jindal Aluminium Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes).
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ and hence, it deserves to be dismissed in limine.
5. In my opinion, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal or revision as the case may be to get rid of the impugned assessment orders. Merely, because the impugned assessment orders, according to the petitioner are passed contrary to successive direction contained in the remand order, is no ground to entertain the writ. This very ground can as well be taken by the petitioner in appeal or revision. Though, entertaining a writ against an assessment order is not prohibited in law, yet when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal or/and revision is available under an Act then, rule of prudence demand that writ should not be entertained. It is not that rare case where the arbitrariness is per se writ large thereby giving go by to filing of an appeal and entertain the writ. If, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then, in every case, the writ can be entertained. The petitioner is always free to raise the grounds of attack which he has made basis in writ in appeal. Law enables the petitioner to challenge the assessment on all grounds in appeal, including those urged in the writ.
6. Reliances placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the cases referred supra, are based on facts involved therein. Every case has its own facts and discretion to be exercised. I am not inclined to entertain the writ against an order of assessment order when the petitioner is admittedly in law entitled to file an appeal/ revision and raise all legal and factual grounds. They can always come to this Court in writ or reference as the case may be after exhausting all their statutory remedies. There is no reason to hold that if a proper case is made out, the impugned assessment would not sustain in law.
7. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the writ. It is dismissed in limine.