WA 297/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.2004 passed by the learned Si ngle Judge in Civil Rule No.1913/1997. The admitted position before the learned Single Judge was that the issue raised was no longer res integra in view of the order passed by this Court in Civil Rul e No.3707 of 1996. Accordingly the matter was disposed of on the basis of the decision rendered in Civil Rule No.3707 of 1996 decided on 11.10.2001. Against this order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. A copy of the writ petition with the reliefs prayed is not produced before us. L earned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is whether the appellant is liable to pay sales tax on the sale of Vanaspati, particularly in view of th e direction given by the Assam State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federa tion Ltd. (STATFED) directing the appellant not to collect sales tax. There are two issues raised before us in this appeal. Firstly on the merits of t he case, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the sales tax need not be paid by the appellant but it should be paid by STATFED because the appellant was only a dealer while STATFED was the seller. This issue can well be taken up by the appellant by filing an appeal before the statutory appellate authority. We cannot go into the merits of the assessment. Furthermore, this issue was not raised before the learned Single Judge. The appellant appears to have acted entirely on the directions given by STATFED which are alleged to be incorrect. Therefore, the remedy available to the appell ant is to proceed against the STATFED for recovery of the amount paid as tax, si nce the appellant proceeded on the allegedly wrong advice of the STATFED. There is no cause of action for filing a writ petition against the Revenue. Under the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed.