1. :- In all these three writ petitions, common questions of law are involved, therefore, I propose to decide these three writ petitions, by a composite order.

2. The learned counsel, Shri G.S. Bapna, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these writ petitions. It is urged by Shri Bapna that the petitioners have an alternative remedy to file an appeal before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1994") and against order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), a second appeal is provided under Section 85 of the said Act. It is urged by Shri Bapna that against order passed in second appeal under Section 85, a revision is maintainable under Section 86 of the Act of 1994, before this Court.

3. The learned counsel, Shri Bharat Vyas, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, strenuously urged before me that the question of alternative remedy is not attracted in the present case, inasmuch as an intricate question of interpretation of Article 285 of the Constitution of India, is involved. In support of his aforesaid contention, Shri Bharat