Judgment :- 1. Heard Ms. Mallika Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner-Company calls in question the order of the respondent passed in Assessment No. CST No.582558, dated 19.01.2011 relating the assessment year 19961997 on the file of the respondent, seeking to quash the same. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the main plea of the petitioner-company is that there was a delay in passing the assessment order and therefore, even without moving the Appellate Authority as per the statute, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 19.1.2011 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nandanam Assessment Circle, Chennai, reveals that an appeal lies against the same before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes III, Chennai-108, within 30 days. Therefore, the limitation period prescribed by the Authority ended by 19.2.2011. The petitioner, without moving the Appellate Authority, has moved this Court by filing this Writ Petition on 23.02.2011, challenging the said order dated 19.1.2011, just four days after the expiry of 30 days for filing the appeal against the impugned order. 5. Though the merits of the case are advanced for the purpose of interfering with the order of the authority, unless the petitioner has shown to this Court there is violation or infringement of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice and if any order passed is ultra-vires the provisions of the relevant Act/Rule, it is not proper for the Writ Court to interfere with the impugned order, when there is effective and alternative remedy of appeal available under the statute. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the merits of the case could be adjudicated before the Appellate Authority, namely the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes III, Chennai-108, in effective manner. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a plea that because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, the limitation period to move the Appellate Authority expired and therefore, he requests time and prayed that the period of pendency of the Writ Petition may be excluded for the purpose of limitation to prefer the appeal before the appellate authority. 7. 7. Considering the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal, if the same is in order, and dispose of the appeal, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. However, the period of pendency of this Writ Petition from 23.02.2011 up to the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner, shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Further, the petitioner-Company shall work out their remedy for contesting the delay, if any, for the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed as per law. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.