JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition bypassing the alternate remedy by way of an appeal as provided under the statute, since the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the orders. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had filed Exts. P3 and P4 objections, which were received by the assessing authority on 24.11.2010, without considering which, the assessment orders were passed. He submits that the assessment orders were served on him only on 25.2.2011 long after the receipt of the objections dated 24.11.2010 and, therefore, the assessment orders are liable to be interfered with and the assessing authority is liable to be directed to consider the matter afresh. Admittedly the petitioner received the pre-assessment notices and has not filed objections within the time stipulated in the notice issued to him. The fact that the assessment orders were served on the petitioner only on 25.2.2011 does not ipso facto mean that the assessment orders were not passed on 22.11.2010. Therefore, when the petitioner himself is at fault in not responding to the pre-assessment notices within the time stipulated therein, I am not inclined to hold that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders. That being so, the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the impugned orders in an appeal as provided under the statute. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered as one filed within time and disposed of in accordance with law, on merits.