Judgment : 1. These four writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 06.04.2013 in STA Nos.202/06, 236/06, 186/06 and 237/06 on the file of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby and where under the appeals preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax challenging the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were allowed resulting in restoration of the order passed by the original Authority. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The matter relates to the assessment years 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of domestic electrical fuses during the period 1983-84 to 1988-89 in the factory at Plot No.46, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner sold domestic electrical fuses from Hosur and had also transferred the products to the warehouses outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner claimed exemption on payment of Central Sales Tax under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the transfer of goods to places outside the State of Tamil Nadu did not involve any sale. The petitioner appears to have collected Form-F from the warehouse situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu and submitted the forms to the second respondent. The petitioner claimed exemption under the stock transfer. 3. While so, the premises of the petitioner was searched by the Officials of Commercial Tax Department on 24.07.1990. The officials noticed that the petitioner had mentioned the name of the consignee outside the State in certain documents like stock transfer notes, packing slips, goods consignment notes and gate passes. The assessments for the years 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were taken up by the Assessing Authority. The Authority concluded that the exemption claimed on account of stock transfers were incorrect, since the name of the consignee was mentioned in stock transfer notes. The second respondent disallowed the exemption and levied Central Sales Tax at 10%. 4. The order relating to the assessment years 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeals were allowed by order dated 25.10.2004. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied on the affidavits obtained by the petitioner from a number of parties concerned with the movement of goods both inside the State as well as in the sales depot of other states and the price list. The appeals were allowed by order dated 25.10.2004. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied on the affidavits obtained by the petitioner from a number of parties concerned with the movement of goods both inside the State as well as in the sales depot of other states and the price list. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the transactions were only branch transfers. The orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were challenged by the State before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the State contented that the stock transfer notes, packing slips, goods consignment notes and gate passes secured at the time of inspection revealed that the goods were manufactured on prior orders. It was the specific contention by the State that the movement of goods were pursuant to the earlier orders placed by the customers and that the branches of the petitioner situated in other States, secured the orders. The Tribunal accepted the contention taken by the State that there existed purchase orders from the ultimate buyers in the other states. The Tribunal, while confirming the penalty, opined that the petitioner did not report the transactions in their monthly return and therefore, it was an act of evasion of tax. The common order dated 06.04.2013 is now under challenge. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS: 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on a finding recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal, contended that the Tribunal relied on a non-existing movement and rendered a perverse finding. According to the learned counsel, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority was not controverted by the Tribunal and as such, the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from non application of mind. It was further contended that the Tribunal proceeded as if penalty is automatic and as such, the finding with regard to penalty is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel finally submitted that the original Authority rendered a finding with regard to special goods. The Appellate Authority rendered a different finding and the Tribunal rendered yet another finding. Therefore, the issue requires to be settled by this Court. The learned counsel contended that notwithstanding the appeal remedy, the writ petitions should be entertained to decide the core question raised by the petitioner. 7. The Appellate Authority rendered a different finding and the Tribunal rendered yet another finding. Therefore, the issue requires to be settled by this Court. The learned counsel contended that notwithstanding the appeal remedy, the writ petitions should be entertained to decide the core question raised by the petitioner. 7. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy. DISCUSSIONS: 8. The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of domestic electrical fuses. The premises of the petitioner was subjected to a search by the officials of the Commercial Tax Department on 24.07.1990. The Inspecting Team seized certain incriminating documents. It was only thereafter, the assessment for the years 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were taken up by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority rendered a factual finding that the name of the consignee was mentioned in stock transfer and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to exemption. The original Authority therefore levied Central Sales Tax at 10%. 9. The assessment orders were challenged before the second respondent in his capacity as the first Appellate Authority. The petitioner produced affidavits from the parties concerned regarding the movement of goods both inside the State as well as in the sales depot of other states and the price list. It was only on the basis of those documents, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the transactions were only branch transfers. The second respondent observed that sale took place only when the goods were sold to the ultimate buyers in other states. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was therefore pleased to allow the appeals. The appellate orders were challenged before the Tribunal by the State. 10. The State raised certain vital contentions before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that the stock transfer notes, packing slips, goods consignment notes and gate passes very clearly prove that the goods were manufactured on prior orders. It was the contention of the State that the electrical goods manufactured by the petitioner were as per the requirements of the customers. It was further contended that the petitioner did not report these transactions as sales in the monthly return with relevant tax, which would amount to suppression. Therefore, they are liable for penalty under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 read with 12 (5) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. 11. It was further contended that the petitioner did not report these transactions as sales in the monthly return with relevant tax, which would amount to suppression. Therefore, they are liable for penalty under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 read with 12 (5) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. 11. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention raised by the State. The Tribunal has given its own reasons to differ from the finding rendered by the First Appellate Authority. 12. The order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contains certain factual matrix which cannot be appreciated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The common order impugned in these writ petitions is an appellable order. When there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, it is not open to approach this Court with writ petitions as though High Court is an Appellate Authority. The materials produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the appeal remedy is not effective. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up so many contentions on facts, which cannot be appreciated without analysing the factual matrix. 13. The petitioner has no case that the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority constituted under Section 19 of the Central Sales Tax Act is not functioning at present. In fact, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the Appellate Forum is very much functioning. LEGAL POSITION: 14. The Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 , made it very clear that the party, should in the ordinary course approach the appellate authority provided under the Act. The Supreme Court said: "11. .......... The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed ......." 15. The Supreme Court in Munshi Ram & Ors. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed ......." 15. The Supreme Court in Munshi Ram & Ors. v. Municipal Committee Chheharta ( AIR 1979 SC 1250 ) held that when a statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner and all the other forums and modes of seeking remedy are excluded. 16. The Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 3 Scale 359 while considering the provisions of the Central Excise Act, more particularly, Sections 35G and 35L observed that when the relevant statute is a complete code in order to seek redress, it may not be appropriate for the writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Most recently in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2013) 10 Scale 326, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that in the normal course, party should approach the appellate forum and writ petition is not the remedy. "15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. ............. 19. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. ............. 19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." 18. These writ petitions were all filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner has got sufficient time to file appeals before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority by availing the alternative remedy available under the statute. 19. In the upshot, I dismiss these writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.