JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 assessment order passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition challenging Ext. P1 without resorting to the appellate remedy available under the Statute only because the assessing authority has not complied with the directions of this Court in C. K. Sunny v. Additional Sales Tax Officer (12 KTR 360). According to the petitioner, the petitioner was given only seven days time by Ext. P6 notice which is hardly sufficient for filing reply to the pre-assessment notice. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly the petitioner has received Ext. P6 notice under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. By the same, objections for the proposal contained in the notice were to be filed by the petitioner within seven days. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed objections. In Ext. P6 the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard in person on 7.5.2011. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner applied for extension of time. That being so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition overlooking the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext. P1 in appeal, this writ petition is dismissed.