The main legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners must exhaust all alternative statutory remedies available under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 before filing writ petitions, regardless of the involvement of the interpretation of constitutional provisions.

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 Vyas placed reliance on a decision, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in case of Karyapalak Engineer, BFD, Bikaner v. Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (SB Sales Tax Revision No. 656/99, decided on 10.1.2000) .

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, raised at the Bar. I am of the view that a writ of certiorari can be filed before this Court, after exhausting all the statutory remedies. Here, in the present case, the petitioners have three alternative statutory remedies available to them, therefore, I am of the view that they are not entitled to file the present writ petitions, without exhausting the alternative statutory remedies, merely beause, in these matters, interpretation of Article 285 is involved. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the second appellate Court and this Court in revision in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 86 of the Act of 1994, can effectively adjudicate the points, which are being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bharat Vyas. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to bring to my notice, any prejudice, which is likely to be caused to the petitioners, if they are directed to avail of the alternative statutory remedies, provided under Sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Act of 1994. It is obvious that all these questions, which the learned counsel for the petitioners, are raising here, they are entitled to raise them before the three forums, mentioned hereinabove.

5. As regards the decision, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, rendered by the learned Single Judge, in case of Karyapalak Engineer, BFD, Bikaner (supra), a perusal of the said decision, reveals that the statutory provisions under Sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Act of 1994, were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, while propounding the proposition, in case of Karyapalak Engineer, BFD, Bikaner (supra). It is pertinent to observe that all these questions, which are being raised and the petitioners intend to raise by way of filing the present writ petitions, were raised in revision before the learned Single Judge, in case of Karyapalak Engineer, BFD, Bikaner (supra). To my mind, even according to the ratio decidendi of the decision, rendered by the learned Single Judge, in case of Karyapalak Engineer, BFD, Bikaner (supra), the present writ petitions are not maintainable, and these questions, which are being argued before this Court, in writ jurisdiction, can be argued before alterntive statutory forums, provided against the assessment orders dated 20.11.2000, under Sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Act of 1994.

6. Shri Bharat Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, gave an undertaking that an appeal would be filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), unde