1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepuak, Chennai  600 005. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Salem Town North Circle, Salem.  Respondents in both the appeals. Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order passed in W.P.Nos. 13184 & 13185 of 2008 dated 4.7.2008. For Appellant :::: Mr.D.Ibrahim Ali. For Respondents :::: Mr.Haja Naziruddin, Special Govt.Pleader (Taxes) J U D G M E N T THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 04.07.2008 passed in two writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.13184 and 13185 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge of the writ Court dismissed both the writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that in a tax matter where alternative remedy is provided a writ petition should not be entertained since the writ petitions have been filed challenging an order of assessment. The learned Judge also held that disputed facts could not be gone into in a writ petition. These are the two broad grounds on which the writ petitions were dismissed. However, in the penultimate paragraph viz., paragraph  13 of the common judgment, the learned Judge held I am dismissing the writ petitions solely on the ground of availability of alternate remedy, merits of the cases canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner company and by the learned Additional Government Pleader are not considered and decided in this order, in any manner. 2. Certain relevant facts may be noted hereunder: The writ petitioner, who is the appellant herein, claims to be a private limited company and is doing heavy civil contract works like infrastructure road construction for National Highways Authority of India, and is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner is also doing certain quarry works. The accounts of the petitioner were called for by the 2nd respondent viz., The Commercial Tax officer, Salem Town North Circle, Salem for the assessment year 20032004. Pursuant thereto the petitioner produced the accounts and thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a preassessment notice granting exemption towards the second sales of petrol and diesel, and labour charges incurred in the execution of works contract. Whereupon the 2nd respondent in his notice proposed to assess the petitioners taxable turnover of Rs.7,55,39,983/, and to that the petitioner filed his objection on 29.03.2007 inter alia contending that the proposed turn over of Rs.7,75,171/ cannot be brought to tax as no transfer of right is involved. The 2nd respondent has passed final assessment order on 23.04.2007 assessing the petitioner for a total taxable turnover of Rs.59,68,38,597/ and Rs.7,47,64,812/. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent issued a revised assessment notice dated 26.10.2007 proposing to levy tax on the purchase value machineries, thereby converting the entire purchase values as sales of machineries by adding a gross profit of 10%. The petitioners contention is that he has not made any sales of the machineries and those machineries were utilized for business purposes and those machineries have not been sold, and the further contention of the petitioner is that the Assessing Officer proposed to levy tax on the purchase of materials which are used for maintenance works by the petitioner, and the petitioners case is that there is no deemed sale of the machineries. Raising all these contentions, the petitioner made an elaborate objection to the 2nd respondent on 28.11.2007. But, the petitioner received the revision of assessment order dated 29.2.2008 from the 2nd respondent, which was received by the petitioner on 14.05.2008 raising demand without looking into the objection filed by the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the objection raised before the Assessment Officer was not taken into consideration at all. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that in his representation dated 28.11.2007 he requested for an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of the circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai  5 dated 20.04.2001. In paragraph 9 of the repres