ORDER S. Manikumar :- The petitioner has challenged the assessment order No. CST 522441/04-05, dated July 30, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - 3, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar, the second respondent herein. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the assessing officer is bound to give any personal hearing before passing order. In support of the contention that the assessing officer is bound to provide a personal hearing, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance on a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the first respondent herein. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and an assessee on the books of the second respondent. The place of the business was inspected by the enforcement officials on October 13, 2004. Following which, a notice dated November 17, 2006, was issued and another notice was also issued on March 30, 2007. Based on D3 report given by the enforcement officials, the assessing officer, issued a pre-assessment notice, dated March 30, 2007. On receipt of the abovesaid pre-assessment notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on May 2, 2007, with a request to the assessing officer to provide one month time and also sought for an opportunity of personal hearing. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the letter dated May 2, 2007 was received on proper acknowledgment, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, a demand notice has been issued. It is in this context, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. M. MD. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the assessing officer, the second respondent herein, has failed to consider the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, dated April 20, 2001, wherein at paragraph No. 2 of the circular, instructions have been issued to the effect that the assessing officer should give reasonable time to the dealers according to the circumstances of the case, to file their objections and if any assessee seeks for personal hearing, the assessing officer is bound to provide the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this court in SRC Projects Private Limited, Salem v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in [2010] 33 VST 333; [2008-09] 14 TNCTJ 220. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - 3, Virudhunagar District, the second respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter justifying the impugned demand. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has fairly submitted that the letter dated May 2, 2007 of the writ petitioner has been acknowledged and that the petitioner did not produce the particulars called for within the extended time and therefore, final orders were passed on July 30, 2007. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Division Bench decision relied on by the petitioner came to be passed only after the conclusion of the assessment and therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. It is also his contention that inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to avail of the statutory remedy provided under section 3 of the TNGST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable and for the abovesaid reasons, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Though the second respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit on the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to delve into the same, as it would affect the interests of the writ petitioner. Suffice it to consider as to whether the petitioner was afforded personal hearing, before finalisation of the assessment CST 2004-05. In this context, it is useful to extract the relevant paragraph from the circular, dated April 20, 2001, issued by the Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the first respondent herein. Office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 Ref. Acts Cell-VJ/13134/2001 Dated April 20, 2001 Circular Sub. : Assessment - Best of judgment assessment - Procedures for making best judgment assessment - Certain guidelines - Issued - Reg. Ref. : This office circular in Acts Cell-VI/3 7801/99 dated August 25, 1999. "2. Fair opportunity is to be given to the assessee and judicial consideration given to the representations, evidences and materials furnished by him. : Assessment - Best of judgment assessment - Procedures for making best judgment assessment - Certain guidelines - Issued - Reg. Ref. : This office circular in Acts Cell-VI/3 7801/99 dated August 25, 1999. "2. Fair opportunity is to be given to the assessee and judicial consideration given to the representations, evidences and materials furnished by him. But personal hearing need not be given unless the statute requires it, (e.g., section 22(2)) or the assessee asks for it." Considering the scope of the circular in revision of assessment under section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act, 1959 a Division Bench of this court in a judgment reported in SRC Projects' case [2010] 33 VST 333; [2008-09] 14 TNCTJ 220, after extracting the relevant portion of the circular, which deals with an opportunity of personal hearing, at paragraph No. 26, of the judgment held that "... in cases where a dealer seeks for a personal hearing, such dealer should be afforded the same in all cases where the Commissioner proposes to record a finding, which is adverse to the dealer, and such adverse order to the assessee can only be made after giving the assessee a hearing". The Division Bench further held that "... the impugned order by way of revision of assessment should not have been passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. But, since the same has been denied, the impugned order is hereby quashed". The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in SRC Projects Private Limited, Salem v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in [2010] 33 VST 333; [2008-09] 14 TNCTJ 220, came to be decided subsequent to the finalisation of the assessment, cannot be countenanced for the reasons that even in the absence of the judgment, clause 2 circular, dated April 20, 2001, can still be made applicable to the case of an assessee, when a request for personal hearing is sought for. The further objection that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy provided under section 31 of the TNGST Act also, cannot be countenanced in law. It is well-settled that existence of an alternative remedy would not oust the jurisdiction of this court to entertain a writ petition, where there is a violation of principles of natural justice. It is well-settled that existence of an alternative remedy would not oust the jurisdiction of this court to entertain a writ petition, where there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The said issue has also been considered by the Division Bench at paragraph Nos. 24 and 25, which are extracted : "24. It is well-settled that the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a writ court under article 226 of the Constitution. Such jurisdiction is plenary in nature. But the existence of alternative remedy operates as an automatic restrain on the discretion of the writ court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. But law in this aspect is well-settled and there are well known exceptions where a writ petition is entertained despite non-exhaustion of statutory remedy. If any one of the exceptions exists, it is open to the writ court to exercise its jurisdiction. Those exceptions are if a writ petition has been filed for an enforcement of any fundamental right where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice at the instance of an inferior authority or where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or ultra vires the statute under which such proceedings have been initiated (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1), a writ petition can be entertained. 25. In Whirlpool Corporation [1998] 8 SCC 1, the learned judges have considered the various judgments in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant also cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Sree Murugan Engineering Products v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore reported in [2006] 148 STC 419. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the learned Chief Justice quoting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited reported in [2005] 142 STC 1, wherein the same principles have been reiterated, held that in a case where there is violation of principles of natural justice, alternative remedy will not be a bar. We respectfully concur with the views expressed in the said judgment." Inasmuch as the right of an assessee is protected under the circular, and following the above Division Bench judgment of this court, the impugned order, dated July 30, 2007, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - 3, Virudhunagar District, the second respondent herein, for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. The second respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing a final order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.