Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.
1. Messrs. Chamba Ram Mulakh Raj, a registered dealer, had filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the reassessment proceedings taken against them by the Assessing Authority.
2. The petitioner-firm purchased certain quantities of vanaspati ghee from Messrs. Subhash Chand & Company (selling dealer) in 1980-81 and paid the tax due. The selling dealer issued the necessary bills and declaration forms in support of this sale and payment of sales tax. The petitioner-firm submitted the tax return accompanied by the above-mentioned documents. The Assessing Authority accepted the returns and framed the assessment vide order dated 31st May, 1982. The Assessing Authority did not accept the claim of the petitioner-firm for having paid sales tax on purchases from the selling dealer and denied the benefit of deductions to the petitioner-firm. The Assessing Authority issued a demand notice requiring the petitioner-firm to deposit the tax assessed. Aggrieved, the petitioner-firm had filed this writ petition.
3. The order impugned is appealable. The first appeal lies to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The second appeal against his order can be preferred before the Sales Tax Tribunal. Even thereafter an application under Section 42 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), can be presented to the Sales Tax Tribunal requesting it to refer any question of law to the High Court for decision. The petitioner-firm has not given any cogent reasons for not availing of the efficacious alternative remedies provided by the statute. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and I order accordingly. However, it will be open to the petitioner-firm to file the statutory appeal. The plea of Mr. D.S. Bali, the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, that the appeal will not be entertained because it has now become time-barred is without any basis. It is well-settled that the time spent by a litigant in pursuing a remedy, under a misconception of law, in an inappropriate forum, is excluded while computing the period of limitation. No costs.