The High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies of appeal and revision are available, unless the petitioner can demonstrate that it would be unable to avail these remedies due to financial hardship or other exceptional circumstances.

D. P. Wadhawa, C J, S. K. Chattopadhaya, J.

1. In this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a Government of india undertaking seeks writ/order or direction quashing the two assessment orders both dated 23-11-1996 passed by respondent No.4, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, one under the provision of the Central Sales lax act and the other under the State law, i. e. the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 . The assessment orders pertain to the year 1988-89. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner for exempted sale put forward under Sec.5 (2) and Section 6 (2) of the Central Sales lax Act, 1956 had been wrongly disallowed/rejected by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner then seeks to have the demand notices in pursuance to these assessment orders quashed as well. Further prayer is for a direction to the Assessing Authority "to issue summons upon the representatives of the petitioners clients under Section 10 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for their examination on oath or affirmation and production of relevant documents required by respondent No.4 for the purpose of consideration of petitioner s above claims of exemption"

2. It could not be disputed that the impugned orders are appealable under section 45 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and that the revision is also maintainable to the Commissioner of the commercial Taxes under sub-section (4)of Sec.46 of that Act. It was submitted by Mr. Poddar, Counsel for the petitioner that in order to avail the remedy of appeal the petitioner has to deposit 20% of the demand so raised which under the two assessment orders aforesaid amounted to Rs.82,58,585 and Rs.42,58,531. He said that the petitioner had got liquidity problem and the fund to make the deposit 20% of the demand was not readily available and further that the petitioner was running its establishment after taking loans from the Bank. It was also submitted that in view of the various decisions of the supreme Court the petitioner could not be asked to avail the alternative remedy of appeal or revision or even otherwise the petitioner would not be able to avail the remedy of appeal which right the statute grants. It was then submitted that the question of law had been raised and that was that the Assessing authority did not take any action under section 10 of the Bihar Finance Act which clothed the Assessing Authority with the power of a civil court for summoning any witness and for production of documents. If the Assessing authority has not exercised any such power. this ground can also be agitated before the appellate authority. It will be for the appellate authority to see if a request under Sec.10 of the Act has been made before the Assessing authority and was that justified in the circumstances of the case. The amount of tax demanded in the first flush would seem to be quite enormous, but then as to what is the status as regards financial assets of the petitioner we would not know. In any case, if we accept the submission of the petitioner that an appeal would not be an appropriate remedy on account of its inability to deposit 20% of the tax demanded, the petitioner on its own showing can certainly file a revision before the Commissioner of commercial Taxes. Sub-section (4) of section 46 of the Bihar Finance Act is as under:

" (4) The Commissioner may, on his own motion call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any order has been passed by any other authority appointed under Sec.9, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may, after examining the record and making or causing to be made such enquiry as he may deem necessary, pass such order as he thinks proper. Mr. Poddar says that in case we give time to the petitioner to file revision before the Commissioner within 15 days and ask the Commissioner to decide the matter within 15 days thereafter, he would certainly file a revision. We are afraid we will not issue a