ORDER K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprised in TNGST/0581453/2004-05 dated June 7, 2006 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to collect tax at four per cent as per the first proviso to section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on the sale of hub ethernet as accessory to computers, or classify the item hub ethernet as peripherals to computers falling under entry 18(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The case of the petitioner is that they are dealing in the business of trading in computer peripherals and accessories. The computer peripherals and accessories are imported from outside India and sold to wholesale dealers all over the country. The petitioner had also effected sales of hubs ethernet port 8 and 16 used in wired LAN, treating them as accessories to computers falling under entry 18(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 and collected taxes at 4.2 per cent. It is the further case of the petitioner that while that being so, during the course of inspection on November 27, 2004, they were informed that as per the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the hubs are liable to tax at 20 per cent under entry 9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a representation before the Commissioner. During hearing on June 29, 2005 it was submitted that the said hubs do not come under taxable items. However, the Commissioner issued the impugned clarification that the hubs are liable to tax under entry 14(v) of Part D, First Schedule and if imported, taxable at 20 per cent under entry 9 of the Eleventh Schedule. It is the complaint of the petitioner in the writ petition that the assessment order has been made on the basis of the clarification issued by the Commissioner as the assessing officer has to follow the clarification issued by the Commissioner under section 28A. I have heard the argument and perused the material on record. Rightly the order impugned is the assessment order which is appealable under section 31 to the appellate authority. I have heard the argument and perused the material on record. Rightly the order impugned is the assessment order which is appealable under section 31 to the appellate authority. It is also equally settled principle of law that the clarification issued by the Commissioner under section 28A of the TNGST Act is not binding on the appellate authority. Hence this point can be argued before the appellate authority. We can easily have the reliance of the Supreme Court decision made in Union of India v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1998 SC 287 , wherein in paragraphs 4 and 5 the Supreme Court 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. 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." Useful reference can also be had on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. reported in [1997] 105 STC 318, wherein it is held as follows : "... These were basically questions of fact which should have been agitated before the statutory appellate authority. There was no reason for the assessee to bypass the statutory remedy and approach the court with a writ petition and the High Court ought not to have allowed the assessee to bypass the statutory remedies where the questions could have been properly agitated and ascertained." The writ petition is not maintainable and hence dismissed. No costs. However, the appellate authority is hereby directed to consider the materials being produced before them and decide the issue on merits and not being influenced by any external issues. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.