Judgment :- 1. The appellant has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.499 of 2008, dated 23.01.2008. The assessee has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 21.08.2007 of the respondent levying penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. According to the appellant, the assessment order for the assessment year 2001-2002 was passed in respect of the appellant by the respondent on 30.04.2004. Subsequently, there was an inspection by the officials of the Central Excise Department and a show cause notice was issued. Based on the show cause notice dated 17.01.2005 issued by the Central Excise Authorities, the respondent herein issued a pre-revision notice dated 30.05.2007 under the Act. As far as the notice regarding the excise department, the petitioner approached the Central Excise Settlement Commission and as per Section 32 F(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the interest and penalty was substantially reduced. The appellant therefore submitted his objections before the respondent, that was considered and the impugned order in the Writ Petition was passed on 21.08.2007 assessing the appellant to sales tax and levy penalty under Section 16(2) of the Act. Aggrieved against the same, he challenged the impugned order in W.P.No.499 of 2008 which was dismissed by this Court. Challenging the said order, he has come forward with the present Writ Appeal. 3. The appellant would mainly contend that even though he has got appeal right, he has challenged the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that as per amended Act under Section 16(1), the words were substituted as follows "five years from the date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority". Therefore, his contention is that since the amendment came into force only with effect from 01.07.2002, as per the then existing laws, the revised order should have been passed any time within five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates and should not have invoked the amended Act stating five years from the date of order. Hence, without availing the appeal remedy, the appellant challenged the order by way of writ petition. 4. Hence, without availing the appeal remedy, the appellant challenged the order by way of writ petition. 4. The respondent, though not filed any counter, would mainly contend that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 31 of the Act. Further they would also contend in respect of similar contention raised by another assessee viz., M/s. Universal Abrasives, rep. by its proprietor in W.P.No.1600 of 2005, this Court has already held that the amendment Act having come into force as on 01.07.2002 the writ petition is not maintainable. In this case, they would contend that the assessment is for the years 2001-2002 and the order was passed on 30.04.2004 and amendment Act came into force on 01.07.2002 and the pre-revision notice has been given even on 30.05.2007 and the revised assessment order itself has been passed on 21.08.2007. Therefore, as the original assessment order itself was passed only on 30.04.2004 after the date of amendment the impugned order is valid as it is passed within five years from the date of order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The only argument made by the appellant was that the amendment Act should not have been utilised by the respondent for the order passed by the authorities concerned. At the out set, it is very clear that the appellant has got alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 31, the writ petition itself strictly is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy. But in any view of the matter, as the writ appeal is pending longer time and the writ petitioner has also invited the order on merits instead of availing an opportunity to go on appeal at this stage it is not correct to remand or direct the appellant to again go before the appellate authority at this belated point of time. Hence, the merits also considered in this appeal. The only argument put forth by him is that the revised assessment order was passed beyond the period of five years from the date to which the tax relates, as per the original Act. 7. Hence, the merits also considered in this appeal. The only argument put forth by him is that the revised assessment order was passed beyond the period of five years from the date to which the tax relates, as per the original Act. 7. It is useful to extract Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which reads as follows: Section 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 case against such assessment. “In sub-Clause (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 16, the expression "date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority" was substituted for the expression "expiry of the year to which the tax relates" by Act 22/2002-Gazette dated 3.6.2002-Effective from 01.07.2002.(Date of effect was notified by G.O.Ms.No.71 CT(B1) dated 27.6.2002 -Notn. No.II(2)/CT/568(d-1)/2002-Gazette dated 27.6.2002). 8. Now when we see Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, it clearly says the revision of the assessment under Section 16 is permitted within five years from the date of order of the final assessment by assessing authority. Earlier it was incorporated as five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. When we analyse the order, here the assessment is of the year 2001-2002 and the assessment order itself was passed on 30.04.2004 the amendment came into force on 01.07.2002 whereas the pre-revision notice was issued on 30.05.2007 as the final revised assessment order itself was passed on 21.08.2007. When we consider these dates, it is clear that the original order was passed on 30.04.2004 which is after the amendment because the amendment came into force on 01.07.2002. Therefore, in respect of the pre-revision notice, the law which is applicable is an Act as amended in this Case, any time within the period of five years from the date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority. Therefore, in respect of the pre-revision notice, the law which is applicable is an Act as amended in this Case, any time within the period of five years from the date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority. Therefore, the legislature is very clear. There is no ambiguity for escaped assessment. The authority can definitely look into the matter and pass orders within five years from the date of order of the final assessment. Admittedly, the order was passed in this case on 30.04.2004 which is much after coming into force of the amending Act viz., 01.07.2002. Therefore, on the date when the present order passed the law governing is only a law amended in 16(1)(a) as it now stands. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the period is only five years from the date of the final order. In this connection, the Single Judgd has also drawn inference to the order of another learned Single Judge to the same effect passed in W.P.No.1600 of 2005. In fact, in that order also it is clearly stated as the amended expression came into force on 01.07.2002 and the initial order of assessment in that case was passed on 11.03.2000 for the assessment year 1997-1998 upheld that the impugned order dated 23.08.2004 was well within the purview of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act which was followed by the learned Single Judge here. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as the order has been passed by the authority concerned within five years from the date of the final assessment as per the amended Act in 16(1)(a) as it then existed. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.