JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 2 8-1976, passed by Tax Officer, Gwalior (Regional Transport Officer, Gwalior) and the notice of demand under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers) Rules, 1959, dated 23-7-1975. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was plying buses on different routes, namely, Guna to sironj, Guna to Ashoknagar, Guna to Shamshabad and Aron to Fatehgarh. The petitioner was collecting passenger tax at the prescribed rate and he submits that he filed the returns in the prescribed forms. He also says that he maintains account books prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and these accounts books were always subject to checking by the officers/inspectors. The Tax Officer was not satisfied with the returns submitted by the petitioner and they appeared to him to be incorrect as well as incomplete. Therefore, he issued notices under rule 7 of the said Rules on 23-7-1975 and in presence of the petitioner on 2-8-1975, he increased the percentage of tax and on the basis of this, he issued notices on demand of 4-8-1975. Against this, the present petition is filed. ( 3. ) THE petitioner complains in this petition that the notices are bad because they are not according to law. There was no material before the tax officer for coming to the conclusion that the returns filed were incomplete or incorrect. Then, there cannot be reassessment without giving a finding as to why the original assessment is bad. Lastly, he has mentioned in the petition that the so-called reassessment was barred by limitation. Further, he submits that there is no other alternative and efficacious remedy to seek the redress except through this petition. This petition is filed on 18-9-1975. ( 4. ) IN the return, the respondent submits that the returns were not filed within time, that the account books were not maintained by the petitioner properly and the returns being not correct and not complete, therefore, the notices were issued under Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. The Respondent also says that the petitioner has not deposited the amount of the assessed tax. The Respondent also says that the petitioner has not deposited the amount of the assessed tax. In paragraph 12 of the return, the respondent specifically raised an objection that under section 12 of the Act, an appeal as well as a revision is provided and because the petitioner has not availed of this remedy, under section 38 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, this petition is abated. This objection was pressed vehemently by the learned Additional government Advocate, for the respondent before us at the time of arguments. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that he is challenging the validity of notices issued to him under Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules and, therefore, section 38 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment)Act, 1976, will not come in his way. We cannot accede to this submission of his because he submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tax Officer, and took part in the proceedings and when a decision has been given against him, he wants to complain regarding the notices before us. The correct remedy will be to file the appeal under section 12 of the Act and to agitate this matter before the appellate authority. ( 6. ) SECTION 38 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 substitutes new Article for Article 226. The new Article (Article 226 (3) ) says: "no petition for the redress of any injury referred to in sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c)of clause (I) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provides for by or under any other law for the time being in force. " ( 7. ) THE other remedy provided by the Act is under section 12 which reads as under: "12. Appeal against demand. (1) Any operator objecting to notice of demand served on him under section 10 may, within thirty days of the service thereof appeal to the prescribed authority: provided that no appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section unless the sum specified in the notice of demand, in respect of which the appeal has been preferred, has been paid. (2) The prescribed Authority may, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. " There is revision also provided in section 12-A and a review also is provided in section 12-B of the Act. (2) The prescribed Authority may, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. " There is revision also provided in section 12-A and a review also is provided in section 12-B of the Act. Only because along with the appeal, the appellant has to deposit the amount of tax specified in the notice of demand will not make the remedy onerous. ( 8. ) THEREFORE, we are of the opinion that under section 38 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, this petition abates and we uphold the objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondent and dismiss this petition as abated. Parties to bear their own costs. Amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.