ORDER Vinod K. Sharma - The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated June 29, 2007, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer I. The only ground of challenge is that the impugned order of reassessment is barred by limitation. In support of this contention, the petitioner submitted that the assessment for the year 1999-2000 was finalised on November 12, 2004. It was only on April 22, 2005, the petitioner was issued a notice under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for reassessment. Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, reads as under : "16. Assessment of escaped turnover. - (1)(a) Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) at any time within a period of five years from the date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority, determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such assessment. (b) Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable, the assessing authority may, at any time within a period of five years from the date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority, reassess the tax due after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such reassessment." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the section was amended with effect from July 1, 2002, which is not retrospective. The reassessment notice issued to the petitioner, therefore, was barred by limitation, having been issued on April 22, 2005, whereas the period of five years for assessment year 1999-2000 expired on March 31, 2005. The reassessment notice issued to the petitioner, therefore, was barred by limitation, having been issued on April 22, 2005, whereas the period of five years for assessment year 1999-2000 expired on March 31, 2005. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the honourable Division Bench of this court, in the case of M.U.A. Arumugaperumal and Sons., Exports, 636/15, Rajapalayam Road, Chatrapatti 626 102 v. Additional Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) [2008] 16 VST 188 (Mad), in W.A. No. 3243 of 2004, decided on April 24, 2008, wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under : "8. It is also brought to our notice that section 16(1)(a) of the Act was later amended by Amended Act 22 of 2002 with effect from July 1, 2002. The amended provision of Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Amended Act 22 of 2002) reads as follows : 'Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) at any time within a period of five years from the (date of order, of the final assessment by the assessing authority) determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such assessment.' 9. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that the limitation period commences from the date of final assessment order. The said provision came into effect prospectively and not retrospectively. There is nothing in the amendment made to section 16(1)(a) that the same was intended to operate retrospectively. There is no dispute regarding the same. Therefore the amended provision is not relevant. There is also no dispute that the revision of assessment is barred by limitation as early as on March 31, 2001, which is much before the introduction of amended provision of section 16(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 22 of 2002, which came into effect from July 1, 2002. Therefore the amended provision is not relevant. There is also no dispute that the revision of assessment is barred by limitation as early as on March 31, 2001, which is much before the introduction of amended provision of section 16(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 22 of 2002, which came into effect from July 1, 2002. Coming to the next contention regarding alternative remedy, normally under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available under the statute and the same can be exercised only when the order is lacking jurisdiction or it is statutorily barred by limitation. The appellant has established that the revision of assessment made under section 16(1)(a) of the Act is statutorily barred by limitation and therefore, it is a fit case for the interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further we are also of the view that the revised assessment made by the respondent is illegal, wrong, without basis and justification." The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 15173 of 2004 (Saba Knitters, No. 690, P.N. Road, Tirupur 641 602 v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur (North) Circle, Tirupur), decided on August 4, 2005, wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under : "The petitioner puts in issue the notice, dated March 31, 2004 made by the respondent for the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1996-97 on the premised that the said notice is barred by limitation. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the relevant period, the statutory provision was that a revisional proceedings can be initiated within a period of five years from the date of expiry of the year, to which the tax relates. So far as this case is concerned, the assessment year is 1996-97 and the revisional notice has been issued on March 31, 2004. Hence, it is hopelessly barred by limitation, which fact has been verified by the learned Government Advocate, who submitted that the notice, which is impugned in this writ petition, dated March 31, 2004 is barred by limitation. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated March 31, 2004, as barred by limitation. No costs. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated March 31, 2004, as barred by limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed." On consideration, I find no force in the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The cases on which reliance has been placed, are the cases where limitation to reopen the assessment had already expired, before the amendment came into force, and it was in that situation, that this court was pleased to hold, that the notice issued to the petitioner, was barred by limitation, as the amendment did not have any retrospective effect. In this, the period for reassessment had not expired the date of amendment. Admittedly, the period, in the case of the petitioner, even as per unamended provision was to expire only on March 31, 2005. The section was amended with effect from July 1, 2002, therefore, it was open to the Department to reopen the reassessment, as per amended provision. In this case, the starting point of limitation was to be taken from the date of the order of reassessment, and not the year of the assessment. It is not disputed that the assessment order, in case of the petitioner, was passed on November 12, 2004, whereas, the notice for reassessment was issued within the period 5/6 months of the order of the assessment. This cannot be said to be barred by limitation, nor can it be said that the amendment has been applied retrospective. The reading of the honourable Division Bench judgment, on which, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, also shows that the reason for holding the notice to be barred by limitation was that the period of limitation had expired before coming into force of the amended provision of the Act. The judgments relied upon, therefore, cannot advance the case of the petitioner. No ground is, therefore, made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. "Dismissed". Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.