The discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised when the assessee has an efficacious remedy from the provisional assessment orders by way of revisions before the statutory authority.

K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the appellant in both the cases. The appeals are filed from the judgment of the same learned single Judge, rendered in O.P. No. 8154 of 1989 and O.P. No. 240 of 1990, dated June 11, 1990. The original petitions were heard together, though separate judgments were passed in the two original petitions. The respondent in both the writ appeals - the same petitioner in both the original petitions - is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short "the Act"). He is the owner of a factory at Alleppey manufacturing rubberised coir. The factory was registered as a small-scale industrial unit. According to the assessee (respondent) he is entitled to the benefit of S.R.O. No. 585/80 (G.O.Ms. No. 46/80/TD dated June 4, 1980 and S.R.O. No. 641/81 (G.O.Ms. No. 46/81/TD dated June 2, 1981) and so he is entitled to the benefit of lower rate of tax on the purchase of rubber made by him for use of such rubber in his units for the manufacture of finished products. The complaint voiced in the original petitions in that such benefit has been denied to him improperly and illegally. In O.P. No. 8154 of 1989 (Writ Appeal No. 578 of 1990) the petitioner prayed for a direction to the first respondent (assessing authority) to extend the benefits of S.R.O. No. 585/80 and for a declaration that rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules (in short "the Rules") is ultra vires the Act and is void and unenforceable and that the first respondent (assessing authority) has no power to make the provisional assessment on the monthly return submitted by the petitioner. Exhibit P8 dated September 4, 1989, is the "provisional" monthly assessment made on the petitioner for the months of April to July, 1989 which was attacked as illegal and devoid of jurisdiction. In O.P. No. 219 of 1990 (Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1990) the petitioner prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P2 (provisional assessment for August, 1989 dated October 10, 1989), P2(a) (the relevant notice of demand therefor), exhibit P3, (notice for provisional assessments for September, 1989) and exhibit P8 (assessment for the year 1987-88). He has also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the second respondent (a mistake for the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax) to dispose of exhibit P9 appeal dated November 19, 1989 filed for the year 1987-88. (The assessment for 1987-88 is exhibit P8). There was also a prayer to declare that rule 21(9) of the Rules is ultra vires the Act and is void and unenforceable and the first respondent has no power to make the provisional assessment on the monthly return submitted by the petitioner. In O.P. No. 240 of 1990 in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the original petition the petitioner had stated that the dispute between the petitioner (assessee) and the first respondent (assessing authority) is regarding the rate of tax, whether 6 per cent or 3 per cent which is payable by the petitioner on the purchase turnover of latex used as raw material in the manufacture of rubberised coir. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to the lower rate of 3 per cent. The petitioner has also categorically stated that it is the denial of the benefit of the above notification, which necessitated the filing of O.P. No. 240 of 1990 and O.P. No. 8154 of 1989. He has stated in paragraph 7 of the original petition that for the year 1987-88 the first respondent (assessing authority) denied the benefit of the above notification and completed the assessment, exhibit P8. The petitioner has further stated that he filed an appeal against exhibit P8 and also a stay petition, evidenced by exhibits P9 and P10, before the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, and they are even now pending.

2. The learned single Judge delivered the main judgment in O.P. No. 8154 of 1989 (Writ Appeal No. 587 of 1990). It was followed in O.P