JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the assessment order dated 28.11.2008 passed for the assessment year 2005-06 raising a dispute that the Inverter and UPSS (uninterrupted power supply system) have been wrongly assessed to tax at the rate of 10% treating them as unclassified items, while the same were liable to tax at the rate of 4% under Notification No. KA-NI.-2-5746/XI-9(239)/96-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-(30)-2002, dated 13.12.2002 being electronic components and power supply devices. 2. Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Inverter and UPSS are the electronic components and being power supply devices, liable to tax at the rate of 4% under the notification dated 13.12.2002. He further submitted that by the circular dated 2.9.2000 the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Trade Tax, U.P., has informed that the State Government, vide letter dated 18.8.2000 has directed that UPSS also works as ‘power supply device’ and, therefore, liable to tax as power supply device. The said circular has been withdrawn in the year 2007 and, therefore, it was relevant for the year under consideration. Such direction/circular is binding upon the assessing authority. He submitted that in the assessment year 2004-05 the assessing authority has assessed Inverter and UPSS as an unclassified items and has not accepted the claim of the petitioner. The matter thereafter came up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.8.2007, allowed the appeal and, following the earlier judgment dated 15.6.2007 of the Ghaziabad Tribunl, held that the Inverter and UPSS are liable to tax at the rate of 4% being power supply devices. He submitted that the Trade Tax Tribunal has treated the Inverter and UPSS as power supply devices in the case of Estroll Power System, Meerut, and in the case of Amla Agencies and the Revision No. 1560 of 2000, filed by the Revenue in the case of Estroll Power System, has been dismissed on 5.8.2008 and the Revision No. 1065 of 2006, filed by the Revenue in the case of Amla Agencies, has also been dismissed on 24.10.2009. He submitted that the assessing authority has erred in coming to the conclusion that the entry of the aforementioned notification dated 13.12.2002 relates to the computer as ‘genus’ and has illegally held that under the entry only those items will be covered which are electronic goods in the form of computer components. He submitted that this view of the assessing authority is patently erroneous and misreading of the entry of the notification. He submitted that the entry is not only confined to computer components as it is clear from the various items mentioned in the entry, viz. Television component, Television glass shells, transistors, picture tubes, video tapes, audio tapes, etc. which are not computer hardware, software and parts thereof. He submitted that entries are in two parts, viz. (i) computer hardware, software and parts thereof and (ii) electronic components. Under the entry itself the various items are mentioned under the aforesaid two items and, therefore, it is wrong to say that the entry was confined to the computer components only. He submitted that it is a settled law that the circulars are binding on the assessing authority and it is not open to the assessing authority to take any different view, contrary to the circular. 4. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, A.P. v. M/s. Indra Industries, 2000 UPTC 472, the decision of this Court in the case of Raghunatyh Laxminarain Spices Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 UPTC 554, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. M/s. Dhiran Chemical Industries, 2002 UPTC 133, the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd., Shamli v. Union of India and others, 2003 UPTC 696 and the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. U.P. Ceramics and Potteries Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1992 UPTC 1333. 5. Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has submitted that whether the Inverter and UPSS are electronic components and power supply devices is a question of fact and to be adjudicated on the basis of the material on record and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 5. Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has submitted that whether the Inverter and UPSS are electronic components and power supply devices is a question of fact and to be adjudicated on the basis of the material on record and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. He further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and now under the U.P. VAT Act. Therefore, in the presence of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, this Court should not entertain the writ petition and relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. 6. In support of the contention, Sri S.P. Kesharwani has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa and others v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd., 1997 UPTC 512 and the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another, JT 2010 (4) SC 54. 7. So far as the circular is concerned, Sri Kesharwani has submitted that the circular is the opinion and is not binding on the Court and, therefore, on the basis of the circular the legal issue cannot be decided. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bengal Iron Corporation and another v. Commercial Tax Officer and others, AIR 1993 SC 2414 (para 18) and the decision of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Balpur v. M/s Ratan Melting Wire Industries, 2008 (231) 22 (SC). 8. Sri Kesharwani further submitted that in the two decisions of the learned Single Judge in the Trade Tax Revisions it has not been examined that whether the Inverter and UPSS are power supply devices and there is no finding in this regard. Therefore, both the decisions cannot be said to be the final authority on the subject. He submitted that each year is an independent year for the purpose of assessment and, therefore, it is open to the assessing authority to raise the dispute relating to the taxability of the goods. He, however, admitted that the assessing authority has gone to the wrong premises while examining the notification. He submitted that each year is an independent year for the purpose of assessment and, therefore, it is open to the assessing authority to raise the dispute relating to the taxability of the goods. He, however, admitted that the assessing authority has gone to the wrong premises while examining the notification. He submitted that for the purposes of the classification of the Inverter and the UPSS under the entry of the aforementioned notification dated 13.12.2002 it is necessary to examine whether Inverter and UPSS are electronic components and power supply devices. The assessing authority has not recorded any finding in this regard. Therefore, it would be appropriate to relegate the matter to the assessing authority to examine whether the Inverter and the UPSS are electronic components and power supply devices on the basis of the evidences being adduced by the petitioner. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. The notification dated 13.12.2002 reads as follows : “[4] English Translation of Government Notification No. KA-NI.-2-5746/XI-9(239)/96-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-(30)-2002, dated 13th December, 2002. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. The notification dated 13.12.2002 reads as follows : “[4] English Translation of Government Notification No. KA-NI.-2-5746/XI-9(239)/96-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-(30)-2002, dated 13th December, 2002. In exercise of the powers under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make, with effect from 20th December, 2002, the following amendment in Government Notification No. KA.NI.-2-306/XI-9(113)/99-U.P. Act-15-48-Order-(8)-2001, dated 29th January, 2001, as amended from time to time : AMENDMENT In the List to the aforesaid notification, after entries at Serial Number 74, the following entries shall columnwise be inserted, namely : Serial Description of goods Point of tax Rate of tax No. percentage 1 2 3 4 75 (i) (a) Television, video cassette recorders, M or 1 12 per cent video cassette player, sattellite receiver, wireless set, video cassette, video games and electronic toy; (b) Telephones including cordless phones, M or 1 4 per cent phones with cords, cellula phones and parts, accessories and components thereof; (ii) Computer hardware, software and parts M or 1 4 per cent thereof and electronic components that is to say all types of passive components, resisters, capacitors, diodes and other active components, transistors, integrated circuits, large scale integration, very large scale integration chips, black white picture tubes, colour picture tubes, power semi-conductors, audio tapes and video tapes, printed circuit boards, connectors, relay, auto electronic components, precision electronic components, magnetic media, micro wave tubes, television components, television, television glass shells, electronic transducers, actuators, display devices that is light emitting diodes, liquid crystal diodeds, micro motors, crystals, tape deck mechanism, etched and frmed foils, electronic tuners, deflection yokes, line output transformers, electrodeposited copper foils, printed circuit board laminate, populated printed circuit boards, power supply devices cabinet and plastic components, (iii) Microwave oven and all other M or 1 8 per cent electronic goods not specified anywhere else in the schedule or in ny other notification.” 10. In the case of State of Goa and others v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held as follows : “15. In our view, whether the products manufactured by the assessee can be treated as “drugs or medicines” cannot be answered straightaway. In the case of State of Goa and others v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held as follows : “15. In our view, whether the products manufactured by the assessee can be treated as “drugs or medicines” cannot be answered straightaway. The medicinal content of the products, if any, has to be ascertained. Its curative function has to be found out. Can the product be called a medicament at all ? Is it used to cure or alleviate or to prevent disease or to restore health or to preserve health ? Are these products treated as drugs or medicines in common parlance ? These are basically questions of fact. There was no reason for the assessee-company to by- pass the statutory remedy and come to the Court with a writ petition. These questions basically of fact should be agitated before the statutory appellate authority. 16. In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. State of Orissa and another, (1983) 142 ITR 663, a Bench of three Judges of this Court pointed out the inadvisability of entertaining a writ petition questioning a sales tax assessment. This Court held : “Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and, then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. 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 of the Constitution.” 17. We are of the view that the assessee should not have been allowed to by-pass the statutory remedies where the questions of fact could have been properly agitated and ascertained.” 11. We are of the view that the assessee should not have been allowed to by-pass the statutory remedies where the questions of fact could have been properly agitated and ascertained.” 11. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (supra) has laid down the law in clear terms that a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that to in a fiscal statute a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In the said case the High Court has entertained the writ petition against the order of the Tribunal while under the statute the appeal lies before the High Court. The Apex Court held that manifest error had occurred by the High Court while entertaining the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act read with Section 55 of the U.P. VAT Act. 12. We have gone through the assessment order. It appears that the assessing authority has misread the entry of the notification. He has confined the entry to the computer components only which appears to be incorrect. The entries are in two parts, viz. (i) computer hardware, software and parts thereof and (ii) electronic components and under the aforesaid two items various items have been mentioned. One of the items is a power supply device. A perusal of the various items mentioned under the aforesaid two items reveal that even those items are included which are not computer hardware, software and parts thereof, viz. audio tapes, video tapes, television components, television glass shells, etc. Therefore, the entry cannot be confined to computer components only. We are of the view that those items which are electronic components and also falls under the items mentioned in the entry will also be covered under the relevant entry and liable to tax at the rate of 4%. Therefore, according to us, it is necessary to examine whether the Inverter and UPSS are electronic components and are power supply devices. This proposition has not been seriously disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Therefore, according to us, it is necessary to examine whether the Inverter and UPSS are electronic components and are power supply devices. This proposition has not been seriously disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. He, however, submitted that since no finding has been recorded by the assessing authority that the Inverter and UPSS are the electronic components and power supply devices, the matter may be relegated to the assessing authority to record finding on the aforesaid aspect. We are of the view that the suggestion of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is fair and is to be accepted. 13. In view of above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we feel that instead of asking the petitioner to avail alternative remedy by way of appeal, the matter may be relegated to the assessing authority to pass fresh order in the light of the observations made above. It will be open to the petitioner to adduce necessary evidences in support of its claim. 14. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. —————