JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. - This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 10999 of 2005 and 12407 of 2005. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing the assessment order dated April 29, 2005 and consequential demand (annexure P5) raised by the respondents. The principal ground of challenge is that the assessment has been framed beyond the period of three years envisaged by section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, "the Act"). The claim of the petitioner is based on certain averments which have been controverted in the written statement. There may be some support available to the petitioner in the affidavit filed by Shri D. V. Subbareddy, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, on August 1, 2006. However, we are not inclined to go into the question as to whether the assessment is framed beyond the period of limitation or it is within the limitation because the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The petitioner has remedy of appeal under section 20(1) of the Act and it can even approach the Tribunal by filing the second appeal. Therefore, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of filing the appeal. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, then the same shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, without insisting upon the payment of 25 per cent of the demand raised under section 20(5) of the Act. We make it clear that if the appeal is decided against the petitioner, then further appeal has to be filed by complying with the provisions of the Act. We further make it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to any other remedy, in accordance with law, including the remedy of challenging the order extending period of limitation before the appropriate authority.