ORDER K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. - The petitioner filed original petition before the Tribunal praying to call for the records of the first respondent to examine the returns filed by the petitioner, grant a real and effective opportunity to produce the records to prove the correctness and completeness of the returns filed and thereafter call for the objections and pass assessment order taking into consideration the circular of the second respondent in circular dated October 8, 2001 in Lr. Acts. Cell I/20470/01 in light of the order of the apex court in C.A. No. 3956 of 1999 (Beardsell Insulations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu decided on August 30, 2001 - Supreme Court). That original petition stands numbered as this writ petition on being transferred to the file of this court. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the original petition is that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, for the assessment year 1999-2000 the petitioner paid tax as per the returns. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased raw materials against form XVII and thereafter exported it to the foreign countries. During the relevant period as there was some unrestment in the petitioner's factory, the petitioner was not able to concentrate on the assessment proceedings. It appears that an assessment order dated January 31, 2002 has been passed. The correctness of that order is canvassed by filing the original petition before the Tribunal which stands numbered as this writ petition, on the premise that in the notice dated July 3, 2001 there is no reference for exemption of penalty as imposed in the impugned order and the assessment order has not been served, as required under the provisions of rule 52 of the Act and relied on so many decisions. But, however, it is seen from the impugned order of assessment that prior to passing of the impugned order, on July 3, 2001 a proposal inviting objections of the petitioner was served on the petitioner on August 28, 2001. The petitioner did not file any objections. Again the respondent issued another reminder on January 17, 2002, which also met with the same fate. The proposal contained in the notice dated July 3, 2001 was therefore confirmed. The petitioner did not file any objections. Again the respondent issued another reminder on January 17, 2002, which also met with the same fate. The proposal contained in the notice dated July 3, 2001 was therefore confirmed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. What is impugned is an assessment order. The petitioner, instead of assailing the assessment order before the Tribunal, ought to have done it before the statutory appellate authority, as the assessee has an equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal to the authority prescribed under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and a second appeal to the Tribunal under section 36 of the Act. The entrustment of the power to assess is not in dispute, and the authority within the limits of his power was a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. The challenge was only to the regularity of the proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer as also his authority to treat the gross turnover returned by the petitioners to be the taxable turnover. Investment of authority to tax involves authority to tax transactions which in exercise of his authority the taxing officer regards as taxable and not merely authority to tax only those transactions which are, on a true view of the facts and the law, taxable. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under article 226. The Act provides for an adequate safeguard against an arbitrary or unjust assessment. The assessee had a right to prefer an appeal under the Act subject to their payment of admitted amount of tax as enjoined by the proviso to section 31 of the Act and as regards, the disputed amount of tax, they had a remedy of applying for stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeal under the said provision [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC)]. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC)]. Having regard to the fact that the original petition assailing the assessment order dated October 31, 2002 was filed on December 26, 2003 and was taken on file on January 12, 2004 and has been entertained by the Tribunal and has been pending since then and on abolition of the Tribunal, transferred to the file of this court and has been pending as writ petition from 2006, this court is of the view that in order to subserve the ends of justice, one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority, if so advised. Two weeks' time is granted for filing such an appeal against the orders of assessment, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellate authority shall entertain the appeal, if filed within the time given by this court in this order. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs.