ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the Respondents and with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to set-aside the Revised Assessment Order, dated 29.04.2020, passed by the 2nd Respondent, in A.O. No. DC 2960, for the assessment year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 (AP VAT) along with the consequential Order, dated 18.08.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice. 2. The facts, in issue, are to the affect that, the Petitioner herein, which is a Private Limited Company is an assessee on the rolls of 1st Respondent under AP VAT Act, 2005, engaged in the business of Works Contract, undertaking Government and non-Governmental works. 3. It is said that, on completion of assessment for the tax period 2013-14 and 2014-15 by the 1st Respondent vide its Proceedings, dated 30.04.2016, in A.O. No. 19623, it was found that the tax liability was a tune of Rs. 2,49,105/-. Invoking its powers under Section 32(2) of AP VAT Act, the 2nd Respondent proposed to revise the assessment order of the 1st Respondent and accordingly, issued a Revision Show-Cause Notice, dated 21.06.2018. Objections came to be filed by the Petitioner vide letter dated 09.07.2018 enclosing documentary evidence in support of the contentions raised there in. 4. While things stood thus, the Petitioner claims to have shifted his business from M/s. Swapna Project Private Limited, Engineers & Contractors, 80/132/4, J.N. Road, besides the Lane of Ravindra Bharathi Road, Bonamvilla, 3rd floor, Rajahmundry, to the address set-out in the cause-title i.e., Flat No. 204, Sri Saisadan Apartment, H. No. 73-23-06/7, Narayana Puram, Danavayipeta, Rajahmundry. It is an admitted fact that the change in address was not intimated to the 1st Respondent. The owners of the premises, where the office was originally shifted, informed the Petitioner about the receipt of the notice from Commercial Taxes Department, on 10.09.2020 and a perusal of the same showed that 1st Respondent has passed a revised assessment Order, dated 18.08.2020, raising a demand for Rs. 94,96,575/-. Though, the Order, dated 18.08.2020, indicates Revision of Assessment Orders by 2nd Respondent in RF No. 33/2018-19, dated 29.04.2020, and served on 20.05.2020, but, the Petitioner claims that it was not received till date. 94,96,575/-. Though, the Order, dated 18.08.2020, indicates Revision of Assessment Orders by 2nd Respondent in RF No. 33/2018-19, dated 29.04.2020, and served on 20.05.2020, but, the Petitioner claims that it was not received till date. It is further pleaded in the affidavit that, though, the Petitioner filed number of objections along with the letter, dated 09.07.2018, but the authorities failed to consider the material filed by the Petitioner. 5. Sri. S. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, took us through the Order, dated 29.04.2020, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition and contended that, since the material filed by the Petitioner along with the letter have not been considered, the order has to be set-aside and the matter be remanded back, enabling the authority to consider the material filed by the Petitioner. He further pleads that, even the original order of the Respondent was not served on the Petitioner and therefore, he has no other alternate remedy except to invoke Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax opposed the same contending that, a perusal of the Order shows that personal hearing was held on 18.01.2019 and that being so, considering the documents, which are issued subsequent to the date of personal hearing would not arise. According to him, the documents, which are now sought to be relied upon are dated 22.01.2019, 25.01.2019 and 02.02.2019. In view of the above, he would submit that the argument of the Petitioner that the documents were not considered is wholly without any basis. Apart from that, the learned Government Pleader would contend that, since an efficacious remedy of Appeal is provided before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner ought to have availed the same. 7. A perusal of the Order impugned shows that, the notice of personal hearing is dated 08.01.2019 and the personal hearing was held on 18.01.2019. The same is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner stating that, hearing was only on 18.01.2020 and not on 18.01.2019, but, no material has been placed before us to show that the hearing took place on 18.01.2020. Therefore, there is a dispute with regard to a factual aspect, namely, as to when personal hearing was held. The importance of the same being that the documents, which are now sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner, are dated subsequent to 18.01.2019. 8. Therefore, there is a dispute with regard to a factual aspect, namely, as to when personal hearing was held. The importance of the same being that the documents, which are now sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner, are dated subsequent to 18.01.2019. 8. Further, a perusal of the Order, dated 18.08.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajahmundry, would clearly indicate that, the dealer was given an opportunity of personal hearing vide Office Notice, dated 08.01.2019, which was received by one Sri. S. Sravan Kumar, Manager and Authorized Representative, who appeared at the time of personal hearing on 18.01.2019 and reiterated the same contentions as narrated in the letter of objections, dated 09.07.2018. 9. Further, a reading of the affidavit shows that the Petitioner vide its letter, dated 09.07.2018, has filed detailed objections enclosing the documents in support of its contentions. If the letter is dated 09.07.2018, it is strange as to how the Petitioner could enclose the documents, which are dated 22.01.2019, 25.01.2019 and 02.02.2019. To this, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, a mistake has occurred in mentioning the date, while drafting the letter and the actual date should have been 09.07.2019 and not 09.07.2018. But, strangely, the said letter, which is placed on record as Ex.P3 does not contain any date. Therefore, a doubt arises whether any such letter was issued and if so, whether any documents were enclosed along with the letter. 10. It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, the Petitioner has not received the assessment Orders of DCC, Kakinada, dated 29.04.2020, and also the Revised Assessment Order, dated 18.08.2020, as he has changed the place of business. But, this change of place of business/office was admittedly not informed to the assessing authorities. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot now complain about the non-service of orders impugned herein. Hence, the two issues raised, namely, that assessment orders were not served on the Petitioner; and that the documents filed along with the letter of objections were not considered cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition. 11. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot now complain about the non-service of orders impugned herein. Hence, the two issues raised, namely, that assessment orders were not served on the Petitioner; and that the documents filed along with the letter of objections were not considered cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition. 11. Having regard to the fact that the dispute involves factual aspects, we see no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed giving liberty to the Petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of filing an Appeal before the appropriate Tribunal explaining the delay, in which event, the concerned may deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations/finding in this order are only to decide the case on hand and the same shall not influence the authorities concerned while deciding the case on merits or otherwise. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.