JUDGMENT F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of revised assessment made by the respondent in CST No. 50386/1997-1998 dated 23.8.2004 on the ground that the said order came to be passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 16(i)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Admittedly, the petitioner has got a right of appeal against the order impugned in this writ petition. Therefore, in the light of an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, there is no scope to entertain this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that since the order of the respondent is ex-facie illegal, this Court can examine the correctness of the said order. Here again, on a reading of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, I find that though the assessing authority has been vested with the powers to reopen any assessment, if the turn over of the business of a dealer escaped the assessment to tax, such reopening of assessment can be made at any time within a period of five years from the date of the order of the final assessment by the assessing authority. The expressions "date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority" came to be substituted for the expression "the expiry of the year to which the tax relates" by Act 22 of 2002. The amended expressions thus came into effect with effect from 1.7.2002. In the case on hand after the initial order of assessment on 11.3.2000 the final order of assessment came to be made on 2.7.2002 in respect of the assessment year 1997-1998. In such circumstance, when the date of the impugned order is 23.8.2004, it will have to be held that the order came to be passed well within the time limit prescribed under Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would attempt to contend that since the date 2.7.2002 relates to an order of revision, which came to be made subsequent to the original order of assessment dated 11.3.2 000, the said date cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the limitation prescribed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. I am not able to accept the said submission so made on behalf of the petitioner. I am not able to accept the said submission so made on behalf of the petitioner. Under Section 16(1)(a), while fixing the period of five years as limitation, the crucial date for consideration is the date of the order of final assessment by the assessing authority. Therefore, when the assessment for the year 1997-1998 came to be finally made by the respondent assessing authority by the order dated 2.7.2002, the said order squarely fits in to the expression "date of order of the final assessment" as prescribed under Section 16(1)(a). I therefore do not find any substance in the contentions so raised on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also dismissed.