ORDER V. KANAGARAJ, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in Pro. TNGST. No. 913553/95-96, dated June 1, 2004 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 and quash the same. Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for admission in the presence of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader on the contra, this Court has been fully apprised of not only the facts and circumstances of the case but also the existence of an appeal provision to file a regular appeal challenging the order impugned herein. This aspect is also admitted by the petitioner in the affidavit itself. But, the reason assigned on the part of the petitioner for bypassing the appeal provision which is the alternative remedy provided for under law is that it is neither an effective remedy nor is there any statutory bar for filing the above writ petition thus without compliance of and bypassing the appeal provision. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would lay emphasis that in the circumstances of the case, the writ petition could be admitted and the orders passed. Reasons may be many in number for not complying with the alternative remedy provided for. But the fact remains that it is a statutory provision of law envisaged under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and if at all the above writ petition is to be admitted for being heard and decided by this Court making use of its discretionary powers granted under article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would only amount to bypassing the regular statutory remedy provided under law, which is a statutory compulsion and unless in rarest of rare cases wherein if such a writ petition is not admitted, the ends of justice would get defeated, no such writ petition could be entertained when there is a definite provision for preferring a regular appeal and seeking the remedy as it is sought for before this Court today in the form of the above writ petition. All the questions raised in the above writ petition could be settled by the appellate authority designated under the Act and that no such condition prevalent that certain aspects involved in the case in hand could not be heard and decided by the appellate authority so as to request this Court to interfere with the impugned order and when such a condition is not prevalent, it is not at all desirable to entertain the above writ petition when there is an alternative remedy provided for under the statute. The learned Senior Counsel would also cite a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court delivered in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Foramer France reported in [2003] 264 ITR 566 wherein it has been held : ".................... (v) on the facts, the notices were bad as they were only on the basis of a change of opinion and the law that an assessment could not be reopened on a change of opinion was the same before and after amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, of section 147, and (vi) as the notices were without jurisdiction, the assessee should not be relegated to the alternative remedy ............" The above proposition of law does not apply to the facts of the case in hand since the facts and circumstances encircling the subject of the above writ petition are entirely on different footing which could be appreciated by the appellate court itself and therefore this Court is of the strong view that the above writ petition does not become entitled for admission and it is only desirable to dismiss the above writ petition at the admission stage itself directing the petitioner to prefer a regular appeal before the appellate authority concerned and hence the following order : In result, (i) the above writ petition does not merit admission for the foregoing reasons assigned, but becomes only liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is dismissed accordingly. (ii) However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has a request to be made with the court that since he has made an attempt before this Court under the Constitutional provisions in filing the above writ petition, much time is lost and would crave permission to elongate the time for preferring the regular appeal before the appellate authority. (ii) However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has a request to be made with the court that since he has made an attempt before this Court under the Constitutional provisions in filing the above writ petition, much time is lost and would crave permission to elongate the time for preferring the regular appeal before the appellate authority. Since it is a reasonable request made on the part of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the lower appellate authority is hereby directed to entertain the appeal, provided the same is preferred within thirty days from the day that this order copy is made ready. (iii) The appellate authority is further directed to consider and pass such interim orders which are necessary in the circumstances of the case even during the pendency of the appeal, if sought for, in strict observance of the law, rules and procedures. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 30 of 2004 is also dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.