JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri P.M. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.
2. This order shall also govern disposal of L.P. As. Nos. 27 of 2002 (Steel Tubes India v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax) and No. 28 of 2002 (Steel Tubes of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax), as all these appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single Judge in appellant’s W.P. No. 2463/2001, decided on November 29, 2001 Steel Tubes of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax [2003] 131 STC 422 (MP). The appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
3. The appellant had filed writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, before the learned single Judge, against the order of assessment dated May 29, 2001 and subsequent order passed under Section 19 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the aforesaid order of assessment has been passed by the respondent, which is contrary to the directions issued by revisional court earlier. It was further contended that to carry out the directions given by a revisional authority earlier, subsequent revisions were also filed, but of no avail.
5. Learned single Judge has dismissed the appellant’s petition mainly on the ground that the appellant has statutory remedy of preferring an appeal against the assessment order. It has also been held that in the said appeal, so preferred by the appellant, it will be open for it to raise all the grounds of attack, including the one which have been posed in the writ petition.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record, we find that learned single Judge has taken proper and correct view of the matter. It is no doubt true that remedy of writ petition may not be an absolute bar against the availability of an alternative remedy, but here in the case, the appellant has a remedy of preferring statutory appeal against the order of assessment. Admittedly, the said remedy has not been exhausted. Thus, we find that no case for interference is made out.
7. Accordingly, this and the connected appeals are hereby dismissed summarily.
8. A copy of this order be retained in connected LPAs for ready reference.