WP(C) 2090/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Dr. BP Todi, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. D . Saikia, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance department. The petitioner challenges the assessment order dated 20.11.10 of the Superintend ent of Taxes for the year 2005-06 by contending that the transaction in question were made in course of inter-state trade and computation of the C-Form benefits should have been considered by the assessing authority, before assessment of ta x. The learned counsel points out that penalty was also unreasonably levied by the assessing authority where mensrea to evade tax is absent. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the petitioner c an avail the alternate remedy of appeal u/s 79 or revision under Section 82 of t he VAT Act and the challenge made by the petitioner/assessee can easily be exami ned by the statutory authorities who exercise quasi-judicial function. After arguing the matter for sometime, Dr. Todi submits that the petitioner is p repared to avail the alternate remedy but he submits further that considering th e upcoming Bihu holidays, he may be granted reasonable time to avail the alterna te remedy and in the meantime, the petitioner may be protected from the recovery proceeded under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner should have availed of the alternate remedy before approaching the writ court. However, the learned departmental counsel is prepared to concede until 30th April, 2011 as th is interim protection time was already granted by the recovery officer, to the a ssessee. Having considered the above, this writ petition is not accepted and the petition er is relegated to the statutory remedy available in Law. However, the responde nts are restrained from taking any coercive measure to recover the assessed tax until 30.4.2011. The writ petition stands closed accordingly.