1. Heard Mr. OP Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department.

2. The petitioner, a partnership firm, having its principal place of business at A.T. Road Guwahati was registered as a registered dealer under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, AVAT Act of 2003) as well as the Central Sales Tax of 1956 (for short, CST Act of 1956). In course of their business, the petitioner carried a consignment of electrodes through Truck No.MP17HH2994 dispatched by M/s. Esab India Ltd., Nagpur against Tax Invoice No.301303765 dated 21.03.2014 which was valued at Rs.13,96,684/-. The said vehicle was subjected to verification of documents by the Boxirhat Check Post in the first week of April, 2014. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 07.04.2014 was issued against the petitioner under Section 75(6) of the AVAT Act of 2003. Accordingly, in terms of the proceeding drawn up, a tax liability Rs.69,834/- was determined @ 5% of VAT with a penalty of 3 times thereof, totaling to Rs.2,79,336/-. Against the said determination, an appeal under Section 79 of the AVAT Act of 2003 was preferred which was dismissed by the order dated 26.02.2015. Against the order of 26.02.2015, a further appeal under Section 80 of the AVAT Act of 2003 was preferred before the Assam Board of Revenue which was numbered as Case No.21 STA/2015. The said appeal was dismissed by the Assam Board of Revenue by its judgment and order dated 08.08.2017.

3. In this writ petition, the order of the Assam Board of Revenue dated 08.08.2017 along with the earlier orders of 17.04.2015 of the Superintendent of Taxes, Boxirhat and the dated 26.02.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeal), Guwahati are assailed.

4. Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State of Assam has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition. By referring to Section 81 of the AVAT Act of 2003 it is submitted that against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, a revision is maintainable before the High Court and, accordingly, as a statutory revision is provided, therefore, this writ petition does not lie.

5. Mr. Saikia, also refers to Section 4 of the AVAT Act of 2003, which, inter alia, provides that the Government shall by notification w.e.f., the date specified therein constitute an appellate tribunal to exercise the power conferred on the Tribunal by or under the AVAT Act of 2003. It is stated that by an appropriate notification the Assam Board of Revenue has been designated as the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of AVAT Act, 2003. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 of the Assam Board of Revenue has to be construed to be a Judgment and Order by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 80 of the AVAT Act, 2003. Therefore, as the said Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2017 is a judgment by the Appellate Tribunal under the provision of Section 81 of the AVAT, Act of 2003, a statutory revision is maintainable to the High Court. Accordingly, as a statutory alternative remedy in the form of revision is applicable, therefore, a writ petition against the said Judgment and Order is not maintainable.

6. Mr. OP Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Section 174 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the AGST Act of 2017) submits that under Section 174 (2)(f) thereof, only a proceeding initiated and surviving under the AVAT Act, 2003 is saved under Section 174 (2)(f).

7. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel contends that in the instant case, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner came to an end after the Judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 of the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.21 STA/2015, and, therefore, as the proceeding initiated came to an end and is not surviving as on date, therefore, there is no further requirement of preferring a revision under Sect