JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-12, Agra for the assessment year 2007-08 (1.4.2007 to 31.12.2007) under Section 7 (3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The petitioner is a builder and engaged in the activities of constructing the flats. A show-cause notice was issued with a view to levy the tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka, 2005 (5) SCC 162 . The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice and submitted that on the facts and circumstances, the decision of the Apex Court does not apply. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 433 of 2010 challenging the show-cause notice . This Court vide order dated 29.3.2010 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that let the assessing authority may examine the facts of the present case by passing the assessment order. The assessing authority while passing the assessment order was directed to consider as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the decision of the Apex Court is applicable or not. The rest of the observation and the direction relates to the year 2006-07 which is not relevant to the present case. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the assessment order has been passed which is being challenged in the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. 4. The matter came up for consideration on 21.5.2010. Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy of the assessment order which has been provided to the petitioner is dated 29.3.2010 and in the third line of second page of the order it is mentioned that the case is being disposed of ex parte. While the order-sheet, which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, reveals that on 25.3.2010 the date was adjourned to 30.3.2010 and on 30.3.2010 Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate appeared and filed reply and certified copy of the order of this Court dated 29.3.2010 was produced and further the order-sheet reveals that the order has been passed on 30.3.2010. While the order-sheet, which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, reveals that on 25.3.2010 the date was adjourned to 30.3.2010 and on 30.3.2010 Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate appeared and filed reply and certified copy of the order of this Court dated 29.3.2010 was produced and further the order-sheet reveals that the order has been passed on 30.3.2010. The order-sheet has been signed by Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate on 30.3.2010, therefore, the copy of the assessment order, which has been provided to the petitioner, is not a genuine assessment order. He further submitted that the case of the petitioner has not been properly examined. 5. We have called upon the learned Standing Counsel to seek instruction in the matter. The case has been taken up on 27.5.2010. Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has filed an affidavit of Sri Ravindra Sharma, Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Bijnor, who has passed the assessment order. In the affidavit, it is stated that he has received the copy of the order passed by this Court dated 29.3.2010 on 30.3.2010 and in compliance of the order of this Court, the deponent passed the assessment order on 30.3.2010. In paragraph-4 of the affidavit, it is submitted that before signing the assessment order passed on 30.3.2010 necessary correction was made which finds place at third line of the assessment order at page 2 wherein the word ‘EKPACHHIYA ROOP SE’ was deleted and the word ‘UPLABDH TATHYON KE AADHAR PAR’ was replaced. In paragraph-5 it is stated that it appears that as 31.3.2010 was the closing day of the year and the authorities as well as the staff of Commercial Tax Department were heavily burden to complete their respective jobs assigned to them on or before 31.3.2010, the Stenographer, Commercial Tax, Agra who has issued and signed the certified copy of the assessment order by mistake could not notice the necessary correction which was made on third line at page 2 of the assessment order and also by mistake has mentioned the date 29.3.2010 as the date of passing of the assessment order. In paragraph-9 it is submitted that the assessment order was passed on 30.3.2010 and correction in the third line of page 2 was made before signing the order by the deponent, as such the allegation that there was manipulation by the deponent is unfounded and wrong. In paragraph-9 it is submitted that the assessment order was passed on 30.3.2010 and correction in the third line of page 2 was made before signing the order by the deponent, as such the allegation that there was manipulation by the deponent is unfounded and wrong. In paragraph-10 it is stated that after coming to know of the mistake committed by the Stenographer in the manner he has issued the certified copy of the assessment order the deponent is proposing to take necessary action against. In paragraph-11 it is stated that it appears that the Stenographer while issuing the certified copy has taken out the print from the computer of the order typed by, which did bear the correction made by the deponent before signing the order for such a mistake and negligence committed by the Stenographer necessary inquiry and action will be taken against him. 6. Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the copy of the order, which is available on record, the date of the order mentioned is 30.3.2010, there is a correction in third line of page 2 in the order. He submitted that it appears that inadvertently in the correction, the signature has not been made. He further submitted that the order-sheet clarifies that on 30.3.2010 Sri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Advocate appeared and filed the copy of the order passed by this Court on 29.3.2010 which was duly incorporated in the assessment order also and reply was filed which shows that the hearing took place on 30.3.2010 and thereafter the assessment order was passed on 30.3.2010. He submitted that in the order-sheet of 30.3.2010, it is also mentioned that the counsel has not brought any record and has not filed balance sheet, etc. In view of the above there was no manipulation in the order. He submitted that the petitioner shall be provided correct certified copy of the order within a week. He further submitted that whether the decision of the Apex Court in the case M/s K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka (Supra) is applicable or not depends upon the facts of the case. In the grounds taken in the writ petition, the petitioner has disputed the facts mentioned in the assessment order, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and can only be adjudicated in appeal. In the grounds taken in the writ petition, the petitioner has disputed the facts mentioned in the assessment order, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and can only be adjudicated in appeal. The petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 55 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “VAT Act”) and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 8. On the facts and circumstances, we do not find that there is any manipulation in the assessment order with an ulterior motive. The order-sheet reveals that hearing took place on 30.3.2010. Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate appeared and filed copy of the order of this Court dated 29.3.2010. Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate also signed the order-sheet. In the record, the original copy of order signed by the authority, dated 30.3.2010 is available and on the first page the date of despatch is also shown as 30.3.2010. Therefore, it appears that while issuing the certified copy, the Stenographer has advertently mentioned 29.3.2010 as the date of order. Likewise, it appears that the correction made in the second page of the order has not been incorporated by the concerned clerk while issuing the certified copy of the order. It is true that at the place of correction, there should be a signature of the officer concerned in the original order but merely because the officer has not put the signature at the place of correction, it will not invalidate the entire order. On the facts and circumstances, we do not see any manipulation in the order. 9. In the petition, the petitioner has disputed the facts mentioned in the assessment order. It is also in dispute that whether certain documents have been filed or not. These are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 55 of the VAT Act and, therefore, we decline to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, we direct the assessing authority to provide a correct certified copy of the assessment order within one week. We also direct the assessing authority to be more careful in future in passing the assessment order. ————