ORDER K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - This petitioner filed writ petition challenging the correctness of the pre-assessment notice issued by the second respondent in TNGST 3961240/2004-05 dated March 24, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to file objections, if any against the proposal with relevant records so as to enable the respondent to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05. Due reply has been submitted by the petitioner to the proposal notice. It is the further case of the petitioner that while that being so, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the first respondent - Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his proceedings dated May 12, 2006 issued a clarification that the hybrid cotton seed is taxable at four per cent under entry No. 6(iii), Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and hybrid sunflower seed is taxable at four per cent under entry No. 6(ix), Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In view of the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, it is the case of the petitioner that any amount of explanation offered by the petitioner would not give the desired result. Hence, the writ petition is filed challenging the clarification of the first respondent in letter No. D. Dis. Acts Cell II/55402/05 dated May 12, 2006 clarification No. 71/06. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The clarification is not a suo motu clarification issued by the first respondent. It is an invited clarification by the petitioner. It is also well-settled that if the petitioner is able to produce material to take a different view than the clarification issued by the Commissioner, that can be taken at the appellate stage. Though it is as per section 28A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the clarification issued is binding on the assessing officer. In Union of India v. Hindalco Industries reported in [2004] 135 STC 281, it was held that in matters of taxation, it is inappropriate for the High Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution either at the stage of show-cause notice or at the stage of assessment where alternative remedy by way of filing a reply or appeal, as the case may be, is available. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1998 SC 287 , has held as follows : "4. In our view, this writ petition should not have been entertained by the High Court at all. The Assistant Collector is entitled to complete the assessment as he thinks fit in exercise of his judgment and according to his understanding of the law and facts. For this purpose, he can call for and examine whatever documents he considers relevant. If the Assistant Collector fails to follow any judgment of the High Court or this court, the assessee had adequate statutory remedies by way of an appeal and revision against the assessment order. The court should not try to control the mode and manner in which an assessment should be made. If the Assistant Collector is of the view that enquiries are necessary to be made as to the price at which trucks were sold at the regional sales offices, the court cannot stop him from making such enquiries. 5. Mr. Sorabjee, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has complained that the assessments are going on endlessly and without due regard to an earlier judgment of the Patna High Court in respect of an earlier assessment year on the very same issues. Whether the controversy raised in this case is covered by an earlier judgment of the High Court is a matter to be decided by the Assistant Collector. He will have to decide all questions of fact and law. He has to make whatever enquiries he thinks necessary for determination of the value of excisable goods. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot give guidance to Assistant Collector about the manner and mode in which the assessment should be made." In view of the above discussion, it is open to the petitioner to face the assessment order in accordance with law by submitting the explanation along with the relevant materials and the assessing officer is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and the material produced by them in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.