JUDGMENT : Madhuresh Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by reassessment of petitioner’s tax liability by the Respondent No. 3 (Assessing Officer) under order dated 20.06.2018 and the consequential demand notice dated 20.06.2018. The reassessment is in respect of petitioner’s liability towards Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The petitioner has, thus, been required to pay a sum of Rs.70,21,262.81/- towards tax and interest. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner is a dealer of ‘Himgange Ayurvedic Oil’. He has purchased the goods from the manufacturer upon payment of tax and is regularly paying tax as required under the law. There is an audit objection, raised by the office of the Accountant General that the oil is not a medicine, nor in any schedule of Act, and therefore requiring the petitioner to pay differential tax treating the sale of the oil as an unspecified goods. Petitioner was, served with a show-cause, based on the audit objection under Section 33 of the Act. Petitioner submitted his clarification and the Assessing Officer, being satisfied with the submission and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV v. Pandit D.P. Sharma, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 288 , treated the oil to be a drug and held imposition of tax @ 4%, as justified recommending closure of the audit objection by order dated 04.11.2016. 4. The said order was again reopened by the same Assessing Officer. This time, on the basis of report of the Public Accounts Committee, show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 31.05.2018, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Petitioner reiterated his earlier explanation. However, the Assessing Officer has passed an order on 20.06.2018, refusing to accept the oil in-question as a medicinal product under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (for brevity ‘Act of 1940’). He has held the petitioner liable to payment of tax @ 12.5%, treating the oil as an unspecified item. The petitioner’s counsel is aggrieved by such reopening of the issue by the Assessing Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reopening/reconsideration does not have any sanction of law. 6. He has held the petitioner liable to payment of tax @ 12.5%, treating the oil as an unspecified item. The petitioner’s counsel is aggrieved by such reopening of the issue by the Assessing Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reopening/reconsideration does not have any sanction of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that if at all, the petitioner was aggrieved, there was alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the VAT Act itself. 7. Considering the rival submissions, this Court would find that the issue that arises for consideration is whether the Statute permitted reopening of the issue, after closure of audit objection in a proceedings under Section 33 of the Act. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to point out that there is any provision in the Statute permitting the Assessing Officer to reopen such an issue. 8. This Court would thus find that the impugned order dated 20.06.2018, and the consequential demand notice dated 20.06.2018, is wholly without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer has no authority under the Statute to reopen/review an order passed under Section 33 of the Act. 9. This Court, therefore, is not impressed by submission of the learned counsel for the State regarding alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. The law, by now, is well-settled that Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction in cases where alternative remedy is available is a Rule of discretion, and not one of the compulsions. In spite of alternative remedy being available, the writ Court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction at least in three contingencies, as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MP State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Jahan Khan reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88 , one of them being when an order is wholly without jurisdiction. 10. The objection of alternative remedy, therefore, has to be considered on a case to case basis and the jurisdiction vested in this Court by the Constitution of India, cannot be divested merely for the fact that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, even though the action of the Authority impugned, as in the instant case, is without jurisdiction. 11. 11. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the reassessment of petitioner’s liability by Respondent No. 3 under order dated 20.06.2018, as also the consequential demand notice dated 20.06.2018. 12. The writ application is allowed.