The High Court should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction when the applicants had an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and further remedies under Sections 14 and 15.

K. N. WANCHOO, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected cases under Article 226 of the Constitution and will be disposed of by one judgment as the point raised in them is the same. Case No. 29 is filed by three firms of Balotra, namely Messrs, Jethmal Ram Swarup, Messrs. Bansidhar Hastimal and Messrs. Madholal Rames-warlal. Case No. 150 is also filed by a firm of Balotra, Messrs. Bansidhar Kanmal.

( 2 ) THE applicants in the two cases prepare Misri, Batasa, Makhana, Ola and toys from sugar and sell them in the market. Their case is that their preparation is really nothing more than sugar and as sales-tax is already paid on the sugar used by them, no further sales-tax can be charged on the articles prepared by them out of sugar. In the alternative, their case is that these articles prepared by them are deshi sweetmeats which are exempt under serial No. 14 of the Schedule to the rajas-than Sales Tax Act (No. XXIX of 1954) hereinafter called the Act. Consequently, no sales-tax could be charged on sales of these articles made by them. The Sales Tax Officer, Barmer, however, called on them to furnish returns of their turnover for the purpose of assessment of sales-tax. They represented to the sales Tax Officer that they were not liable to pay any sales-tax on the articles prepared by them. The Sales Tax Officer, however, overruled their contention and assessed them on the gross turnover of their business. It seems that these articles are not the only articles in which Messrs. Bansidhar Kanmal are dealing and their claim apparently was that the sales of these articles should not be taken into account in calculating their gross turnover. The Sales Tax Officer, however, rejected the contentions of the applicants of both cases and assessed them to sales-tax. Consequently, the present applications were filed in this Court.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the State that this Court should not interfere in Its extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage as the applicants had an equally efficacious and convenient alternative remedy by way of appeal and revision under the Act.

( 4 ) RELIANCE in this connection has been placed on a decision of this Court in ramniranjan Kedia v. Income-tax Officer, a Ward, AIR 1957 Raj 210 (A ). Now the Act is a special self-contained Act providing for assessment of sales-tax and for remedies to correct wrong assessment. The assessment is made under Section 10 of the Act. Thereafter an appeal is provided under Section 13 of the Act and any assessee objecting to an assessment may within 60 days from the date on which be was served with a notice of demand appeal to the appellate authority, provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a Satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax in respect of which the appeal has been preferred. Under Section 14 (2) of the act, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has the power to revise an order on an application made by a dealer within six months of the date of the order. Then under Section 15 of the Act, the case can be referred to the High Court on the application of a dealer within sixty days from the passing by the Commissioner of any order under Section 14 on any question of law arising out of such order. Thus it will be seen that it is open to a party if he is dissatisfied with an order of assessment to appeal under Section 13. If he is dissatisfied with the appellate order, he can go in revision to the Commissioner. If he is dissatisfied with the revisional order and a question of law arises, he can ask the Commissioner to state a case to this Court. If the Commissioner refuses to state the case, the assessee has a right to apply to the High Court to require the Commissioner to state the case.

( 5 ) THE question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether it is open to an assessee to come direct to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution from an order of assessment without following the procedure prov