Judgment : 1. Heard Mr.T. Pramodkumar Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.R. Jaya Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the labour charges and consumables used in the job work of printing is not liable to tax. However, the Assessing Officer has taken into consideration that also and therefore, the action of the respondent is ultra virus the Rules and principles laid down by the Courts. He has relied on the decision reported in 1959 (X) Sales Tax Cases 345 in the case of Rayalseema Constructions and another vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mannady Division, Madras and others, in support of his contention. 3. On the other hand, Mr.A.R. Jaya Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), would contend that there is an effective alternate remedy available to the petitioner and without availing the same, the petitioner has rushed to this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, on the merits of the case, learned Government Advocate would submit that it is a matter for consideration by the appropriate authority. 4. A circumspection of the facts would reveal that for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order on 19.07.2010 holding that though the assessee has reported labour receipt of Rs.1,51,47,790/-which is tallying with that books of accounts, they have not done any pure labour work and that labour works involved transfer of materials therein. For the assessment year 2003-2004, the Assessing Officer found that the dealer had purchased chemicals processing materials, packing materials and binding materials locally from the registered dealers and used them in the job work executed. But they have not disclosed the resultant deemed resale turnover for assessment. Such resale turnover is liable to tax at 1% under Section 3A of the TNGST Act 1959. Thus, the deemed resale turnover of Rs.29,46,651/- is inclusive of turnover of Rs.1,36,736/- already brought to assessment. The petitioner has filed invoicewise statement for labour receipt and furnished delivery challan to show that paper or board supplied by the customer for doing labour works. The Assessing Officer has also given a finding to this effect. It is true that when certain charges are not leviable, it is for the authority concerned to assess the tax in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer has also given a finding to this effect. It is true that when certain charges are not leviable, it is for the authority concerned to assess the tax in accordance with law. While doing so, if there is any discrepancy in the order, it is incumbent on the petitioner to go before the appellate forum for redressal of such grievance and for consideration of such question which arises for consideration. Without doing so, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that there is a levy without jurisdiction. 5. Time and again this Court has taken a view that when there is an effective, efficacious alternate remedy available to the parties, it is for them to exhaust such a remedy in accordance with law and they can agitate every merit of the case before such a forum. The appellate authority, being a higher forum, is bound to consider every aspect of the matter and look into the position and see if there is any error on the part of the original authority. If that could be the position, the petitioner's approach, without exhausting the appellate remedy, would definitely deprive the statutory right conferred on the parties. 6. For the foregoing discussions and for the reasons stated above, as the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ petition when there is an effective statutory remedy, this writ petition is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal, before the appellate authority, within fifteen days from the receipt of a copy of this order. If the appeal is filed within such time as aforesaid, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law without insisting on the limitation period, if the appeal is otherwise in order.