Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Thisis an appeal arising out of order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has an adequate efficacious and alternative remedy by way of filing the appeal against the order of assessment under challenge. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in M.P. The appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various types of synthetic yarn and alleges that it maintains its depot at Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan and also registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder. 4. According to the case of the appellant that the appellant closed operation at its Bhilwara depot during October, 1996 and started selling goods directly from Dewas in the course of inter-State trade pursuant to sale contracts. 5. Inthis view of the matter mere fact that Mr. Gyanchand Jain, Proprietor of Vishal Trading Company, was appointed as an agent at Bhilwara, the sales made by the appellant to its constituents in Rajasthan resulted in movement of goods from M.P. to Rajasthan. No liability under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act arises in Rajasthan in respect thereof either under the Central Sales Tax Act or under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1997-98 to which the present proceedings relate. 6. Theassessing officer at Bhilwara made a provisional assessment order in respect of the sales made to its Bhilwara constituents in Rajasthan through its agent Vishal Trading Co., Bhilwara, by holding that these were sales made in Rajasthan after the goods have been received in Rajasthan and the transaction entered into Bhilwara in respect of those goods. 7. Thepetitioner has challenged the said provisional assessment order dated December 31, 1998 by way of Original Application No. 42 of 1999 before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal which stood transferred to this Court as Civil Writ Petition No. 3969 of 2000 on the abolition of said Tribunal. 8. For the assessment year 1997-98 provisional assessment orders were made raising total demand of Rs. 9,8 1,296. 8. For the assessment year 1997-98 provisional assessment orders were made raising total demand of Rs. 9,8 1,296. Since the writ petition No. 3969 of 2000, registered as a result of transfer of petition filed before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, was in respect of assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively, at the direction to file separate petition for each year three separate writ petitions including the Writ Petition No. 1237 of 1999 came to be filed for the assessment year 1997-98 to which this appeal relates. 9. Oneof the grounds challenging the provisional assessment order is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no adequate opportunity was given to him before making provisional assessment order. 10. The said Writ Petition No.1237 of 1999 came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground of availability of adequate alternative remedy. 11. However, after the dismissal of the said writ petition filed against the provisional assessment order, but before the appeal could be filed against that order within few days thereafter, on September 29, 2000 final assessment orders were made in respect of assessment year 1997-98. Thus the provisional assessment stood replaced by final assessment order. It is not the contention of the petitioner in respect of final assessment order that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the assessment order was made. No question of validity of any provision of law is also involved in the case. 12. We are of the opinion that so far as the petition challenging the final assessment order for the year 1997-98 is concerned, the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in not entertaining the writ petition because of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal cannot be said to be arbitrary and injudicious so as to warrant of interference in this appeal. 13. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. However, in view of the fact that basic contention for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, in respect of which no final assessment order has been made and assessment proceedings are still pending with the assessing officer, and also in the appeal arising out of final orders in question is determination of the nature of sales through Vishal Trading Co. namely whether they are sales directly from Hind Syntex Ltd., in the course of inter-State trade within the State of M.P. and not within the State of Rajasthan inviting application of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, we deem it appropriate to direct that since the assessee has been prosecuting this litigation fairly along with other matters, the appeal, if filed within four weeks from now may be entertained by the appellate authority on demand of requisite amount required to be deposited without objections to the period of limitation and condoning the delay and the remaining amount of demand shall remain stayed until the decision of the appeal. 15. Subject to these directions, this appeal as well as writ petition stand dismissed. 16. There shall be no order as to costs.