JUDGMENT R. D. SHUKLA, J. - This order shall also dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 67 of 1997, 68 of 1997 and 69 of 1997. 2. Brief history of the case is that Sales Tax Officer issued a notice that tax on certain sales has escaped. Appellants here filed reply and raised objections as to the validity of the notice and the regularity of the proceedings. However, the same did not find favour with the Sales Tax Officer (in this case Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore) who overruled the objections and held in favour of reassessment and reopening of the assessment as per section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. Appellants here challenged the notice and the proceedings in the High Court vide M.P. Nos. 1254 of 1990, 1257 of 1990 and M.P. No. 1208 of 1990. 4. Learned single Judge while disposing of the petitions issued following directions as shown in para 3 of the impugned order : "(a) The petitioner is granted three week's time from the date of this order to file reply to the notice (annexure A) before the taxing authority and is permitted to raise question of jurisdiction as well before it as is contended here. (b) The taxing authority is directed to consider the question of jurisdiction, if raised, depending on satisfaction about existence or non-existence of facts like (a) sale and/or purchase of goods in Madhya Pradesh by the petitioner, (b) escapement of assessment, and (c) omission attributable to the dealer and decide the same after hearing the petitioner as first point deferring till then the question of reassessment by a reasoned order. (c) The taxing authority shall have freedom to proceed further to reassess and fix penalty in terms of section 19(1) of the Act, if answer recorded on the question of jurisdiction is in affirmative." 5. Petitioner-appellants were given hearing by respondent No. 1 and thereafter taking into consideration all the materials collected the order for reassessment was affirmed. The four appellants (here) filed Writ Petition Nos. 1082 of 1996, 1083 of 1996, 1089 of 1996 and 1090 of 1996 and challenged the action including the decision taken by the sales tax authority. 6. Petitioner-appellants were given hearing by respondent No. 1 and thereafter taking into consideration all the materials collected the order for reassessment was affirmed. The four appellants (here) filed Writ Petition Nos. 1082 of 1996, 1083 of 1996, 1089 of 1996 and 1090 of 1996 and challenged the action including the decision taken by the sales tax authority. 6. Learned single Judge vide impugned orders rejected the petitions on grounds that the petitioners would be free to demonstrate during inquiry that there has been no sale or purchase as required under section 19(1) of the Act (i.e., the sale or purchase of goods within the State of M.P. any time during 5 years preceding the assessment and that such transaction has either been under-assessed or escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate. It was further held that petitioners here have alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 38 of the Act and have further right of making a request for reference under section 44 of the Act. As such, learned single Judge relying on a case (Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd.) reported in [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 330 ; (1985) 58 Comp Cas 145 dismissed the petitions. Hence these four appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Choudhary has submitted that despite remand and direction by learned single Judge in M.P. Nos. 1254, 1257 and 1208 of 1990 the taxing authority has not decided the question of jurisdiction and that there is no evidence to show the presence of two mandatory conditions as provided under section 19(1) of the Act. 8. It has also been submitted that there has been no application of mind and, therefore, the judgment orders of the learned single Judge deserve to be reversed with a further direction that notices issued be quashed. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel Shri Choudhary but we are not satisfied with the contentions raised by him. 10. In the directions made as above in the first petition filed by petitioner-appellants, it has been made clear that if the cases are found against the assessees (petitioner-appellants here) the taxing authority shall be free to assess the tax. That judgment/order has finalised. Now there cannot be go back or retreat from that order/judgment. 11. 10. In the directions made as above in the first petition filed by petitioner-appellants, it has been made clear that if the cases are found against the assessees (petitioner-appellants here) the taxing authority shall be free to assess the tax. That judgment/order has finalised. Now there cannot be go back or retreat from that order/judgment. 11. The taxing authority after rehearing the matter has found against the assessee. The evidence has been collected. The same has been discussed. In the presence of evidence as discussed by taxing authority it would be difficult for this Court to hold otherwise. 12. The controversial facts cannot be looked into while exercising writ jurisdiction. Learned single Judge has rightly found that alternative remedy is available as per sections 38 and 44 of the Act and for this reason also it would not be proper to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 13. Learned counsel has referred a case reported in [1956] 29 ITR 857 (S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas) (a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court) in support of his contention. In that case notice was issued after expiry of 8 years and, therefore, it was held that there was patent lack of jurisdiction. This is not the case here. 14. Learned counsel then referred to a case reported in [1980] 121 ITR 551 (Kar) (T. T. Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle III, Banglore). The facts of that case are different. It has rightly been observed in that case that article 226(3) of the Constitution which restricts the scope of power of High Court under article 226 should be construed strictly and if the High Court is of opinion that alternative remedy does not provide adequate relief jurisdiction under article 226 has to be exercised in an appropriate case. In this case learned single Judge has found that there is alternative remedy and the same cannot be said to be without any basis; as such the case referred above, does not help the appellants here. 15. Learned counsel thereafter referred to a case reported in [1993] 201 ITR 106 (Mad.) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kerala Lines Ltd.). That was a case where assessee had made payment of tax in foreign ports and, therefore, it was held that the same could not be regarded as an expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning profits by way of freight. That was a case where assessee had made payment of tax in foreign ports and, therefore, it was held that the same could not be regarded as an expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning profits by way of freight. All the taxes paid by the assessee could at best be considered as an application of profits earned by the assessee. This is not the case here. After inquiry it was found that there has been avoidance in the payment of tax and the same has escaped assessment. 16. Learned counsel then referred to a case reported in [1963] 14 STC 67 (MP) (Firm Janta Hardware Stores v. B. S. Parihar, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Raigarh). The basic conditions required for reopening the assessment have been discussed therein. The same has been found in this case. It was held in that case that a dealer has a right to be heard and of making his submissions against a reassessment. In this case that legal requirement has been complied with. Assessee was given notice. He replied and raised objection and the same was overruled. 17. In our considered opinion, therefore, we do not find any flaw necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of Letters Patent Appeal. 18. All the four Letters Patent Appeals, referred above, are, therefore, dismissed without notice to other party. Appeals dismissed.