JUDGMENT : M Bhuyan, J. Heard Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, assisted by Mr. A Goyal, Advocate as well as Mr. M Nath, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The Order of Assessment dated 4.7.2015 and the Notice of Demand of like date issued under the hand of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer in the office of Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, are assailed in the present proceedings. 3. The petitioner is a Tea Company assessable to agricultural income tax under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’). The case laid out by the petitioner is that a substantial amount by way of refund is due to the petitioner under the aforesaid Act as well as in respect of the interest on such refund for earlier assessment years. However, the Respondent No.4 without refunding or adjusting the same against the current tax liabilities of the petitioner, had issued the impugned orders of Assessment and the Notice of Demand. Particular reference is made to the letter dated 2.6.2015 whereby the petitioner has lodged a claim for adjustment of refund and interest on refund under the provisions of Section 39 of the aforesaid Act, 1939. In addition, the petitioner had also filed an application on 31.3.2014 under Section 39 A of the Act for remission of future tax liabilities on grounds that the petitioner company had incurred loss due to flood and erosion caused by the mighty Brahmaputra river. The request made in the said application was for considering the loss suffered and for allowing remission of tax liabilities having regard to the said provisions under Section 39 A of the Act. According to the petitioner, the claims made have not yet fallen for consideration and instead the Order of Assessment and the Notice of Demand for the Assessment Year 2013-14 have been passed. The limited prayer made is for a direction to the respondents to consider the applications for refund and remission and thereafter to make a fresh assessment of the petitioner company for the Assessment Year 2013-14. In the aforesaid context, Dr. Saraf relies upon the case in NC Mukerjee and Company vs. Union of India and another, reported in (1968) 68 ITR 500 and in case of Kamrup Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2006) 144 STC 50 (GAU). 4. Mr. In the aforesaid context, Dr. Saraf relies upon the case in NC Mukerjee and Company vs. Union of India and another, reported in (1968) 68 ITR 500 and in case of Kamrup Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2006) 144 STC 50 (GAU). 4. Mr. M Nath, learned counsel representing the respondents, at the very outset, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 24 of the Act, 1939 which provides for an appeal against the assessment made under the Act. Mr. Nath submits that having regard to the legislative intent as propounded under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, 1939, the High Court under Article 226 should only exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. In other words, it is contended that when a statutory remedy by way of an appeal is created by law for redressal of grievances, the remedy by way of a writ petition should not be entertained at the very first instance by ignoring the statutory dispensation. To buttress his argument, Mr. Nath relies upon the decision in the Union of India and others vs. Major General Srikant Sarma and another reported in (2015) 6 SCC 773 . Mr. Nath also submits that in so far as refunds and adjustment are concerned, the Assessment Order itself indicates that refunds have been sanctioned and adjusted as per option exercised under Rule 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1939. In this connection, Dr. Saraf submits that the said refunds and adjustment had been made up to Assessment Year 1985-86 but in so far as the refund due to the petitioner from Assessment Year 1986-87 to the Assessment Year 1992-93, which had been duly assessed at Rs.33,490,376.00, the same has neither been refunded nor adjusted in the computation made for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Dr. Saraf submits that the said assessed refunds due to the petitioner is an admitted fact and the same finds mention in the impugned Order of Assessment dated 4.7.2015 itself. 5. The facts above have been noticed. Admittedly, the refunds due to the petitioner for the assessment Year 1986-87 to Assessment Year 1992-93 had not been set off against the sum due from the petitioner in respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14. 5. The facts above have been noticed. Admittedly, the refunds due to the petitioner for the assessment Year 1986-87 to Assessment Year 1992-93 had not been set off against the sum due from the petitioner in respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14. Also, the application made by the petitioner under Section 39A of the Act has not reached its logical conclusion. The requirement of law under Section 39 of the Act is that the Superintendent of Taxes or the Agricultural Income Tax Officer is required to refund to an assessee any sum paid by the assessee in excess of the sum due from the said assessee under the Act. Discretion vests with the assessee to opt for receiving the amount by way of set-off against the sum in respect of any other assessment year. The provision for payment of interest for delay caused in making refund is also provided. As regards the remission under Section 39 A, the State Govt. for the purpose of remitting the whole or part of the amount of the tax, interest or penalty payable in respect of any year by an assessee, the conclusion has to be reached by recoding reasons in writing. 6. In case of NC Mukerjee and Company (supra), it has been held that before the Certificate Officer executes the demand, the amount refundable to the assessee should be ascertained by the concerned Income Tax Officer so that the demand may be executed only for the balance. Also in case of Kamrup Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has been held that refund claim has to be computed along with the interest payable and the amount refundable along with the interest be adjusted against the amount due on account of tax for an Assessment Year along with interest payable on tax due till the date when the refund had become due. 7. In the instant case, the exercise required to be undertaken in adjusting the amount refundable along with interest had not been done, as would be apparent from the Assessment Order itself. 8. The objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition is not required to be gone into having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the limited prayer made by the petitioner. 9. 8. The objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition is not required to be gone into having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the limited prayer made by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner made under Section 39A of the Act and also to take such necessary steps towards adjustment of the assessed refund due to the petitioner from the Assessment Year 1986-87 to Assessment Year 1992-93 and to make a fresh assessment in respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14. Needless to say that until a fresh assessment is made by the respondent authorities for the Assessment Year 2013-14, Notice of Demand dated 4.7.2015 shall not be acted upon. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition stands disposed of.