JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a registered dealer under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the TVAT Act, 2004) assailing the assessments made by the assessing authority in exercise of powers u/Sec.31(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004 for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015. 2. Indisputedly, the order passed by the assessing authority impugned in the instant proceedings dt. 31st March, 2016 is appealable u/Sec.69 and second appeal u/Sec.71 before the tribunal and further a revision petition before the High Court u/Sec.72 on a question of law. That, an inbuilt mechanism has been provided under the Act, 2004, if the dealer is aggrieved may file an appeal against the order of assessment or penalty levied under the Act, 2004 provided the amount of tax assessed or the penalty levied has been paid with a discretion to the authority before whom an appeal has been preferred for reasons to be recorded in writing may provide relief to the dealer to pay any lesser amount but that shall not be less than 50% to the tax assessed or 50% of the penalty levied and on payment of the amount so directed by the appellate authority, appeal can be entertained. 3. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose are that the petitioner was awarded a contract by the NF Railways in respect of Earthwork and construction of minor bridges from KM 0.00 to KM 35.00 from Agartala to Udaipur of Agartala-Subroom new BG line project vide work order dt. 31st August, 2009. As alleged in the petition, the petitioner submitted returns duly audited by the Chartered Accountant, but the assessing authority issued notices dt. 14th September, 2015 regarding assessment for the year 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 u/Sec. 31(1) of the TAVT Act, 2004, pointing out the irregularities in the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner to levy interest u/Sec.25 (1) (c) and penalty u/Sec.25(3) of the Act. 4. In compliance of the notice served by the assessing authority in exercising the powers u/Sec. 31(1) of the Act, 2004, the authorized officer of the petitioner, Sri. 4. In compliance of the notice served by the assessing authority in exercising the powers u/Sec. 31(1) of the Act, 2004, the authorized officer of the petitioner, Sri. Haridas Sutradhar (Accountant) appeared before the assessing authority but from the material which is come on records, no written explanation/objection was submitted by the petitioner and it has been alleged that the desired documents were produced before the assessing authority, but the order impugned of the assessing authority dt. 31st March, 2013 indicates that the desired documentary evidence which the assessing authority called for to be produced by the petitioner, despite opportunity was withheld and the assessing officer has observed that the record required for the purpose of assessment including the books of accounts viz purchase register, permit register, C form utilization register & counterfoils of C form, stock register, bill register, copy of RA bills, records & documents of earthwork, labour register, etc. could not be produced despite opportunity being afforded and only summary statement of purchase of materials, statement of permit utilization, C form utilization statement are produced which according to the assessing authority was not conclusive and sufficient for assessment and for withholding the accounts/records desired no reason was assigned and for which the petitioner failed to adduce any reason. 5. could not be produced despite opportunity being afforded and only summary statement of purchase of materials, statement of permit utilization, C form utilization statement are produced which according to the assessing authority was not conclusive and sufficient for assessment and for withholding the accounts/records desired no reason was assigned and for which the petitioner failed to adduce any reason. 5. It was further observed by the assessing authority that the record and accounts of earthwork was not maintained and thus, amount of expenditure incurred on earthwork is not available in the records and on being asked to explain as to why in absence of books of accounts, record and documents u/R. 7(A) of the TVAT Rules, 2005 shall not be followed to ascertain the amounts towards labours, wages & service charges and other like charges and the explanation tendered according to the expression made by the assessing authority was not worthy of credence and no evidence was produced in support of purchase of non-taxable materials as furnished in the returns and the assessee failed to produce tax invoice/cash memo/bill of domestic purchase, if any and further observed that the audited accounts are not worthy of credence as alleged and returns and the turnovers finished by the assessee for the period of assessment are not true and correct, thus, liable to be rejected and accordingly, the taxable turnover for the period of assessment was accordingly determined based on the actual transaction of all taxable materials used on transferred in execution of work contract in the light of the amount received against the taxable materials as per Schedule-3 and accordingly, proceeded to make a computation for the respective assessment years under its impugned order of assessment dt. 31st March, 2016. 6. In the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, counsel has tried to justify that the order of assessment is bad on manifold reasons, but there is no pleadings on record as to why the petitioner has not avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided u/Sec.69 of the Act, 2004 and the only averment which has been made by the petitioner is in Para-42 holding that there is no other efficacious alternative remedy available except to approach this Court in filing the writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 7. 7. After the notice has came to be served, counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents and apart from the justification tendered on merits of the order of the assessing authority, preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of existence of efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal/revision which are available at the command of the petitioner under the Act, 2004 in Para-4 & 5 of the counter affidavit. 8. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner of paragraphs 4 and 5 to meet out all preliminary objection and the only statement made is that the instant petition is maintainable and this Court can exercise its jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India to allow the relief as prayed for by the petitioner, but no justification has been tendered as to why the statutory remedy for appeal has not been availed by the petitioner which is mandated by law and in the course of appeal, it is open to revisit the material on record and to record the independent finding of facts & law which indisputedly is an effective alternative remedy available at the command of the petitioner. 9. During the course of arguments, counsel has tried to persuade this Court that the order of assessing authority is without jurisdiction but after we have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the view that what being urged before us is in regard to the correctness of the finding recorded by the assessing authority under the order impugned dt. 31st March, 2016 and that can certainly be revisited by the appellate authority under the Act, 2004 and apart from the provision of statutory appeal available at the command of the assessee, the order of the appellate authority is further appealable/revisable, not by the departmental authority but later by the High Court also u/Sec.72 and the legislature in its wisdom is of the view that if such a revision petition is being preferred before the High Court, that shall be heard at least by two judges, there appears no reason to circumvent the inbuilt mechanism which has been provided to the assessee if aggrieved by the order of assessing authority under the Act, 2004. 10. 10. We are persuaded with the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition on count of an alternative effective remedy of appeal available at the command of the petitioner u/Sec.69 of the Act, 2004. The Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 observed that the alternative remedy may not come as a bar invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India being plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition, but has imposed upon itself certain restrictions where an effective an efficacious remedy is available but under three exceptions the alternative statutory remedy may not operate as a bar in entertaining the writ petition filed u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. For purpose of reference, the relevant extract is quoted ad-infra: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that is an effective an efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.” 11. These principles have been further considered by the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , wherein it has been further reiterated that if an effective alternative remedy under the statute is available to the aggrieved person the High Court should restrain to exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution and that apart, it is otherwise the requirement of law that if the inbuilt mechanism has been provided under the statute it is desirable to the person aggrieved to exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. The relevant paragraphs 44 and 45 are quoted ad-infra:- “44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 12. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner’s case does not fall in any of the three contingencies which have been referred to above. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 12. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner’s case does not fall in any of the three contingencies which have been referred to above. At the same time, as it reveals that although there is no pleadings on record as to why the statutory remedy of appeal is not effective and efficacious remedy available under the Act, 2004, the reason prima facie appears to be a condition of pre-deposit as envisaged under proviso to Sec.69 of the Act, 2004 but that may not be a reason for this Court to entertain the present writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution and this Court is clear in its view that as long as the statutory remedy is available under the statute, it is advisable for this court to restrain from exercising its inherent jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution and we permit the persons aggrieved to relegate in availing the statutory remedy available under the law. 13. At the same time, it may be appropriate to observe that since the period of limitation is 60 days and that has expired pending writ petition, we consider it appropriate to observe that if statutory appeal u/Sec.69 of the Act, 2004 is being preferred by the petitioner, after due compliance of pre-deposit as mandated u/Sec.69 after due adjustment of the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner under the interim order of this Court dt. 7th June, 2016, the appeal be treated to be within limitation and be heard on merits. 14. We further make it clear that what has been observed by us, is only for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition and the appellate/revisional authority may independently examine the records and may not be influenced/inhibited by the observations made by this Court and decide the appeal/revision if any being preferred in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. No costs.