Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The petitioner put in issue the order of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2001 made in O.P.No.134 of 2001, whereby the original petition filed invoking the provision of Section 16 of the Special Tribunal Act has been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. The precise case of the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that for the assessment year 1992-93, though the petitioner was an assessee, has not filed any returns in respect of his transaction, which comes within Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short "the Act"). The second respondent issued several summons for production of accounts as well as filing of the returns right from the year 1994 to 1998 and ultimately on 14.3.2000, pre-assessment notice was served. Even for the pre-assessment notice, there was no objection raised by the petitioner. The assessing authority ultimately on 28.3.2000 passed the assessment order. 3. The petitioner admittedly has not taken the matter on appeal within the time granted, but however thought it fit to challenge the order of assessment by filing O.P. in the year 2001 by contending that the summons issued right from the year 1994 to 1998 are deemed to have been issued under Section 16 of the Act as the non-filing of the return by the petitioner has to be considered only as an escapement of assessment and in such circumstances, the time limit contemplated under Section 16 of the T.N.G.S.T.Act has already been expired. The pre-assessment notice dated 14.3.2000 and the ultimate order dated 28.3.2000 are all well beyond the five years time limit prescribed under Section 16 of the T.N.G.S.T.Act. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader. 5. We are of the view that no exception can be taken to the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal for the following reasons: Admittedly, for the assessment year 1992-93, no return, what so ever, has been filed by the petitioner/assessee. The petitioner was directed to file the return by service of summons under the provisions of the Act right from 1992 to 1998. As the petitioner failed to respond for filing of the return and production of accounts for making assessment, the assessing authority, left with no other remedy, has issued a pre-assessment notice on 14.3.2000. The petitioner was directed to file the return by service of summons under the provisions of the Act right from 1992 to 1998. As the petitioner failed to respond for filing of the return and production of accounts for making assessment, the assessing authority, left with no other remedy, has issued a pre-assessment notice on 14.3.2000. Even for pre-assessment notice, as there was no response, ultimately, assessment order has been passed on 28.3.2000, which, by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be a proceedings taken under Section 16 of the T.N.G.S.T.Act for the simple reason that when there is no original assessment initiated, there cannot be any re-assessment on the ground that the tax levied or assessment escaped turn over under Section 16 of the Act, which provided that for any reason, the whole or any part of the turn over business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turn over, which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turn over. Escapement will come only when there is original assessment. Escapement of assessment rather pre-suppress an original assessment. When there is no original assessment, there is no question of escapement of assessment. The petitioner in this case has not filed any returns either offering certain turnover for assessment or claiming that there was no taxable turnover or claiming any exemption as to tax liability and as such no turnover was subjected to assessment for the relevant years. That is the precise reason given by the Tribunal also for which they have relied on a comparable provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/S. K.GOVINDAN AND CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN (JUDGMENT TODAY 2000 SUPPLMEENT 3 SC 394). Having regard to the reasons given by the Tribunal, we are of the view that there are absolutely no merits in this writ petition and the same has to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed.