ORDER A.J. Desai, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent. 2. The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent opposing the petition. Affidavit-in-rejoinder is also filed by the petitioner. 4. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under: "[a] That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order under Article 226of the Constitution of India quashing the assessment order passed by the Respondent under VAT Act, 2003 dated 31.03.2014 received on 25.04.2015 and quash the demand notice issued pursuant thereto and order the Respondent to grant input tax credit under VAT Act, 2003 of Rs. 3,06,975/- as claimed. [b] Pending the final disposal of this petition, the respondent, its servants and agents be restrained from recovering any amount pursuant the demand notice issued by him dt. 31.03.2015 received on 25.04.2015. [c] The Hon'ble Court may award costs the petitioner against the respondent for not following the binding decision of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of M/s. Meet Traders and M/s. Madhav Steel Corpn. and the decision of the Supreme Court M/s. Suresh Trading Co. virtually amounting to contempt of the Court and breach of judicial discipline. [d] The Court may grant such further relief and other relief as justice of case may require." 5. Mr. K.H. Kaji, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, by taking us to the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2015 submitted that the impugned order by which the petitioner has been asked to pay the tax under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (herein after referred to as 'the act' for short) wherein it is held that the registration of those sellers from whom the petitioner had purchased some goods had been cancelled and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the tax. However, the authority has not examined the documentary evidence produced before the authority concerned. However, the authority has not examined the documentary evidence produced before the authority concerned. He would further submit that when the goods were purchased by the petitioner from those sellers, who were registered under the provisions of the act, and therefore, the petitioner is genuine purchaser and he cannot be asked to pay the tax only on the ground that the registration of the sellers have been cancelled with retrospective effect. There is not discussion in the order about the genuineness of the petitioner and his purchases and therefore, the order is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP, has opposed this petition and would submit that there is alternative remedy available in the form of statutory appeal under the provisions of the act which the petitioner has not availed. She would further submit that whether the transaction is genuine or not would be dispute at the appellate stage and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the order impugned in this petition. The Assessing Officer has not dealt properly dealt with the case and ought to have discussed and appreciated the material produced by the petitioner on record. It is true that there is alternative remedy in the form of statutory appeal. However, we are of the opinion that in absence of the sufficient reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer, the order becomes vulnerable and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. However, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and the Assessing Officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering the documentary evidence as well as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner at the time of hearing, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.