Judgment :- K. A. SWAMI, C.J. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, we have directed the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) to take notice for respondents 1 and 2 and, accordingly, she has put in appearance for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated May 10, 1994, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 19408 of 1993. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings in TNGST/0 71752/87-88 and the order passed therein dated September 21, 1993, by the second respondent, viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Anna Salai II Assessment Circle. The order impugned in the writ petition is an order of assessment against which the appellant has already filed an appeal. One of the several contentions raised in the writ petition against the aforesaid order of assessment was that the same was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant. Learned single Judge has now recorded a finding that proper and full opportunity was afforded to the petitioner/appellant. 2.1. However in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as the writ petition has been dismissed without considering the other contentions, the appellate authority is likely to be swayed away by the fact that the writ petition has been dismissed and as such the order of assessment stands confirmed by the High Court; and consequently, the appellate authority may not examine the appeal on merits; therefore, it is submitted that all other contentions except the finding recorded with reference to lack of opportunity may be kept open and the appellate authority may be directed to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 3. On going through the order of the learned single Judge, we notice that the other contentions are not considered. Learned single Judge has only considered the question as to whether proper and full opportunity was afforded to the appellant/petitioner before passing the order of assessment. That being so, the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the order of assessment has been passed after affording full and proper opportunity, does not amount to rejecting the other contentions which are to be decided by the appellate authority. That being so, the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the order of assessment has been passed after affording full and proper opportunity, does not amount to rejecting the other contentions which are to be decided by the appellate authority. Hence, while affirming the order of the learned single Judge, we make it clear that the contentions raised in the appeal, except the one relating to lack of opportunity, are to be decided by the appellate authority and the dismissal of the appeal and the writ petition in a question shall not be construed as affirming the order of assessment the validity of which has to be adjudged on the basis of the contentions urged before the appellate authority.