DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

1. Having suffered an adverse judgment on 04.10.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 23286 of 2010, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), being the petitioner therein, filed the present writ appeal assailing the findings of the learned single Judge that the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant, a public sector undertaking, was a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, (the Act for brevity) on the rolls of the first respondent, namely Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. When the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, intended to assess the appellant to tax for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 under Section 17D of the Act, complaining that it had not been preceded by a public hearing, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 9206 of 2010.

3. Through judgment dated 05.04.2010, this Court allowed the writ petition directing the second respondent to pass fresh orders within a stipulated time frame, by fully complying with the statutory requirements. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the second respondent duly notified through print media that it would be holding a hearing on 28.05.2010. It also required the appellant to produce the books of accounts on that day. The representatives of the appellant appeared before the 2nd respondent and represented that, in the light of the decentralisation of the accounting procedure spreading along numerous branches across the length and breadth of Kerala, the records are too voluminous to be carried and that necessary explanation with reference to the audit report had already been submitted before the first respondent. Despite the said representation, the second respondent insisted on the authorities of the appellant that they produce the details of particular receipts shown under Schedules N and O to the balance sheet.

4. On the failure of the appellant to produce the desired records, the first respondent issued Exhibits P2 and P3 notices dated 07.06.2010 to complete the assessment for the said years to the best of his judgment. In response thereto, the appellant submitted Exhibit P4 petition dated 14.06.2010 to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the third respondent. In Exhibit P4, the appellant has requested the third respondent to instruct the assessing authority not to fasten them with what is said to be an arbitrary and illegal demand.

5. The record further reveals that the officials of the appellant submitted Exhibits P5 and P6 representations dated 14.06.2010 requesting the first respondent to make arrangements to verify the accounts at the office of each Secondary Switching Area, after giving them sufficient notice and also allow them to file reply to Exhibits P2 and P3.

6. On the initiative of the first respondent, certain top officials of the appellant appeared before him and explained the whole transaction concerning the Interconnection Usage Charges, apart from producing a note of explanation in Exhibit P7. Eventually, based on the explanation submitted by the officials of the appellant and also the audited statements of account produced by it earlier, the first respondent assessed the appellant and served orders through Exhibits P8 and P9 dated 06.07.2010. For the assessment year 2003-04 tax assessed is Rs. 10,81,25,630/- and interest is Rs. 9,08,25,529/- and for the year 2004-05, tax assessed is Rs. 19,48,75,477/- and the interest is Rs. 12,27,71,551/-

7. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Exhibits P8 and P9, the appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 23286 of 2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition through judgment dated 04.10.2010. Under those circumstances, the appellant filed the present intra-court appeal.

8. In the above factual back drop, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has contended that major portion of the amounts additional