The court declined jurisdiction to examine the validity of the assessment orders pending in appeals before the 2nd respondent, holding that the appellate authority had the legal jurisdiction to adjudicate on the complaint and that it was not open for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.

1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Indian made Foreign liquor. It is an assessee on the files of the Ist respondent The Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax & Seles-tax (Assessment), Special Circle, Alleppey. The petitioner was assessed under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act and the Central Sales-tax Act for the years 1976-77 to 1979-80. It was also assessed under the Central Sales-tax Act for the year 1975-76. There are in all 9 assessments for these years. They are evidenced by Exts. P13 to P21 orders. According to the petitioner, these assessments were made arbitrarily and without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its case. The notice calling for verification of accounts was issued on 16-4-1984. There were subsequent notices to similar effect on 3-5-1984, 3-8-1984 and 8-10-1984. Finally Ext.Pl pre-assessment notice dated 25-1-1985 was received by the petitioner on 2-2-1985. The petitioner was given 7 days time to file its objections. The petitioner made an attempt to get extension, of time by Ext. P2. By Ext. P3 order dated 6-2-1985 it was rejected. So, the petitioner filed, objections dated 8-2-1985, on 11-2-1985. Since 9th February, 1985 was a 2nd Saturday and a declared holiday and 10th was a Sunday, the objections could be filed only on 11-2-1985.Assessment orders dated 9-2-1985, evidenced by Exts. P13 to P21, were served on the petitioner on 16-2-1985. The petitioner filed appeals against all the nine assessment orders before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax & Sales-tax (Appeals), Quilon-2nd respondent herein-on 28-2-1985. Petitions for stay of recovery proceedings were also filed. Since the matter was urgent, the petitioner moved a petition for early hearing of the stay petitions. The petitioner was heard on 7-3-1985 and Ext. P6 order dated 11-3-1985 was passed in all the petitions by the 2nd respondent. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to pay 50 per cent of the balance amount and sur-charge that remained payable under the orders and to furnish adequate security for the balance 50 per cent of the amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. In the meanwhile, by Exts. P7, P8 and P9 garnishee proceedings were set in motion by the assessing authority. As could be seen from Exts.P10 and P11, revenue recovery proceedings were set in motion for recovering a sum of Rs. 32,81, 623.97(?) and Rs. 6,44,65,410.08. In para 27 of the O. P., the petitioner has stated that the total amount now demanded is Rs. 9,75,70,119.60. (Rs. 9 crores and odd). The assessing authority also initiated proceedings under S.23(2) of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act against the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alleppey (Ext P12). In this Original Petition, the main grievance of the petitioner are two fold. (1) The assessment orders (Exts.P13 to P21) dated 9-2-1985 were passed in undue haste, without proper notice and without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It is contended that the said orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and so void and illegal. On that hypothesis, the petitioner further contends that the recovery proceedings in pursuance to such orders are equally bad in law and infirm. (2) Regard being had to the inordinate delay, in completing the assessments and in passing the assessment orders for the various years (Exts. P13 to P21) simultaneously, and also setting in motion, more than one of the recovery proceedings simultaneously have resulted in irreparable injury and harm to the petitioner. The petitioner has been asked to deposit 50 per cent of the balance of the tax due which is nearly Rs. 5 crores. It is impossible for any person, regularly doing business to deposit nearly 5 crores of rupees. So, it is contended that the recovery proceedings are also arbitrary and without bona fide