` ORDER C. NAGAPPAN J. - The writ petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated October 28, 2005 in his proceedings in TNGST 2082196/03-04. The petitioner is a registered dealer in vegetable oil and oil cake on the file of the respondent and it has stated that there was an inspection by the enforcement wing officers of the respondent-department and a random stock verification was done, which resulted in certain stock variation compared to the book stock and the enforcement wing officers seized certain books marked "A" to "F", 45 slips and four form "F" declarations for further verification and they also obtained a statement from the petitioner and the respondent took up the original assessment of the petitioner and issued notice proposing to make estimation based on the check-post records, estimation for alleged stock variation, estimation based on D7 slips and 45 slips and the petitioner submitted its objections and without considering the same, the impugned order of assessment came to be passed and challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. Notice was taken for the respondent on the hearing on December 13, 2005 and today January 17, 2006. Mr. S. Mohana Sundaram, learned Government Advocate, appeared for the respondent. Heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the assessing authority is palpably an illegal order and that notwithstanding the alternative remedy, which is available by way of an appeal, the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction of this court to challenge the impugned assessment order and in support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty [2001] 122 STC 594. In the above decision, their Lordships have held as follows : "For the reasons contained in the said decisions, we hold that the impugned provisions are valid. It is, of course, clear that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown that for good reason the court should interfere, then notwithstanding the alternative remedy which may be available by way of an appeal under section 20 or revision under section 21, a writ court can in an appropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do substantive justice. Normally of course the provisions of the Act would have to be complied with, but the availability of the writ jurisdiction should dispel any doubt which a citizen has against a high-handed or palpably illegal order which may be passed by the assessing authority." The learned counsel for the petitioner, while substantiating his contention, contends that the petitioner in his statement, given before the Inspecting Officers of the respondent-department on November 27, 2003 has only admitted that there was difference in the stock for a negligible amount and also paid the tax of Rs. 39,098 towards the stock difference at the time of inspection itself and in the statement, the petitioner has only stated that it has handed over the records and the slips to the inspecting team and it had not accepted the liability on those documents and has submitted its objections to the pre-assessment show cause notice and the respondent, in the impugned order, has extracted those objections in pages 10 to 13 of the original order and has erroneously observed that the petitioner has admitted the entire transactions like stock variation noticed, transactions found in the D7 records, transactions found in the slips, at the time of inspection by the enforcement wing officials held on November 27, 2003 and hence, the impugned order is palpably illegal and liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent contends that the petitioner has to pursue the appeal remedy and cannot canvass the correctness of the assessment order in this writ petition. In the statement given before the inspecting team on November 27, 2003 the petitioner has only admitted its liability to pay the tax with regard to the stock variation and in fact, has paid the same on the same day. The petitioner had not admitted its liability with regard to other records seized from it during inspection and had lodged its objections with regard to the books marked "A" to "F", slips and declarations and those objections were not considered at all by the respondent in the impugned assessment order. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the decision referred to above, a writ court, notwithstanding the alternative remedy available by way of appeal in a sales tax case, can exercise its jurisdiction in an appropriate case to do substantive justice. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the decision referred to above, a writ court, notwithstanding the alternative remedy available by way of appeal in a sales tax case, can exercise its jurisdiction in an appropriate case to do substantive justice. I am of the view that the present one is an appropriate case for exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to do substantive justice. In that view of the matter, the impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order is set aside and the matter is remitted back and the respondent is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner on merits and pass order in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 42681 of 2005 is closed.