JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. Learned counsel for the respondents stated at the Bar that the writ petitioners/State has remedy available by way of revision in terms of the provisions of Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh (VAT), Act, 2005, for short ?the Act?. His statement is taken on record. 2. We have already determined this issue in-CWP No. 4779 of 2014 titled Indian Technomac Company Ltd. versus State of HP and others alongwith connected matters decided on 4.8.2014, and held that when the alternate remedy is available, the writ petition will not lie. The said judgment was upheld by the apex Court. 3. Having said so, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions by providing the writ petitioners to seek appropriate remedy. Ordered accordingly. The time spent from the date of filing of the writ petition till today shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation.