JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Company registered under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Central Sales Tax Act. It is stated that during the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner purchased raw material and packing material from outside the State by importing the same against Form No. XXXVIII amounting to Rs. 84,92,46,251.35/- against 1300 Declaration Form No.XXXVIII. The petitioner submitted monthly returns of its turnover to the Assessment Authority disclosing that value of goods imported from outside the State of U.P. as Rs. 84,91,46,251.35/- against Form No. XXXVIII. This included Rs.19,40,82,059/- by way of inter State purchases and Rs. 65,50,64,193/- from receipt stock transfer. However, in the annual return Rs. 6,55,00,64,193/- was typed by mistake at point No.9(a) (ix) in Form No. XXVI. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a reply. The Assessing Officer by order dated 31 March 2016 imposed a tax demand of more than Rs. 173/- crores on the petitioner on the ground that additional packing material was imported without Form XXXVIII. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed an application dated 9 May 2016 for rectification of the mistake under Section 31 of the Act but no orders have been passed. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition that has been filed to assail the assessment order should be entertained and the petitioner may not be relegated to the filing of an appeal under Section 55 of the Act. 4. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that the Court should decline to entertain this petition as the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal and that the application filed by the petitioner for rectification of the mistake shall be decided expeditiously. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that an application under Section 31 of the Act for rectification of the mistake has been filed. This application needs to be decided by the Assessing Officer at the earliest because of the amount which the petitioner would ultimately be required to deposit pursuant to the order passed by the Assessment Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that an application under Section 31 of the Act for rectification of the mistake has been filed. This application needs to be decided by the Assessing Officer at the earliest because of the amount which the petitioner would ultimately be required to deposit pursuant to the order passed by the Assessment Authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to decide the said application expeditiously and positively within a period of 10 days from today. 7. However, the facts and circumstances of the case do not persuade us to entertain this petition in regard to the challenge made to the order of assessment as the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy. 8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations.