Judgment :- The petitioner is engaged in the manfacture of PVC floats, Monofilament and knitted fabrics. It has its Head Office at Mumbai and branches at different places including the one at Chennai. 2. In respect of the returns filed for the Assessment Year 1994-95, the petitioner claimed exemption on the turnover relating to the sale of Fish Knitted Fabrics. The second respondent herein, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai, rejected the plea of the assessee for exemption and levied tax and penalty, by his order dated 26. 1996. 3. The petitioner herein challenged this before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P.No.1619 of 1996. By order dated 3. 1998, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant commissioner. 4. The petitioner states that the Tribunal, however, did not extend the time for filing the statutory appeal. Since nearly three years had lapsed after the passing of the assessment order, the assessee could not file an appeal under the provisions of the Act. Hence, it invoked the power of the second respondent under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for rectification of the assessment order. In its petition dated 11. 1999, the petitioner placed reliance on the circular of the Special Commissioner dated 19. 1995 in L.Dis. 147755/85 and the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 18 ELT 141 (SAINET PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA) that the fish knitted fabrics is exempt under the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. By order dated 210. 2002, the second respondent rejected the rectification petition on the ground that in the absence of any appeal preferred, the order of assessment could not be reviewed. 5. A revision was preferred as against this before the Deputy Commissioner, who, once again dismissed the same; thereby upheld the order of the second respondent. The petitioner preferred a further revision to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax. In the meantime, recovery proceedings were taken against the petitioner on the amount due as per the demand raised under the assessment order. The petitioner preferred a further revision to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax. In the meantime, recovery proceedings were taken against the petitioner on the amount due as per the demand raised under the assessment order. It is stated that since there is no power for the Joint Commissioner for granting stay under Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the order of the Special Tribunal in O.P.No.1619 of 1996 dated 3. 1998 and to direct the second respondent to consider the claim for exemption in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (1998) 9 SCC 98 (NYLON NET MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER & OTHERS). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in its view in directing the petitioner to avail of an appeal remedy without giving any direction as regards the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceedings before the Special Tribunal. She also pointed out that the authorities below erred in overlooking the circular issued which clearly exempts the fish knit manufactured. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further pointed out that considering the kind of the order passed by the Special Tribunal, the only remedy available to the petitioner was to prefer a petition under Section 55. In the face of the peculiar circumstances, learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Tribunal merits to be set aside. 7. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, which correctly took the view that in view of the alternative remedy available, the original petition could not be taken up by the Tribunal. It is a matter of fact that the assessee did not seek any further clarification from the Tribunal to exclude the time taken for filing the original petition to enable the assessee to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. It is a matter of fact that the assessee did not seek any further clarification from the Tribunal to exclude the time taken for filing the original petition to enable the assessee to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. Having regard to the fact that the assessee had gone before the authority concerned invoking the remedy under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and thereafter, as against the order of rejection, preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner and an appeal against the order of the Joint Commissioner, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal to hold it otherwise. However, having regard to the fact that the revision petition is still pending before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, the demand now sought to be made by invoking the recovery proceedings shall stand stayed till the disposal of the revision petition before the Joint Commissioner. The assessee is at liberty to work out his remedy, having regard to the revision petition, which shall be finally disposed of by the Joint Commissioner, expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P.No.17428 of 2005 is also dismissed.