1. - Three petitions involving common question were heard together at joint request, and are being disposed of by present order.

2. Instant petitions have been filed assailing orders passed by Assessing Authority (Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) Circle-III, Jaipur) under Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the VAT Act"). It is not being controverted that assessments made by Assessing Authority for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 & April 2009 to December, 2009 vide orders impugned herein are appealable Under section 82 to the appellate authority and against an order of appellate authority, further appeal lies to the Tax Board Under section 83 of VAT Act.

3. Counsel for petitioners submits that against order of assessment for the year 2006-07, appeal was preferred before the appellate authority Under section 82 which was rejected - against which further appeal as provided Under section 83 of VAT Act has not been filed; but petitioners approached by way of CWP-3002/2010 wherein while issuing notices, order of appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has been stayed by the Court vide ad interim order dated 26/02/2010.

4. Taking note whereof, counsel for petitioners submits that once identical issue as having arisen in instant petitions has been rejected by the appellate authority while examining order of assessment for the year 2006-07, no purpose is going to be served in filing appeals against orders of assessment for subsequent years (April, 2007 to December, 2009) impugned herein; and that apart, once CWP-3002/2010 has been entertained and notices have been issued by this Court (supra), the same parity may be maintained and operation of impugned orders of assessment in the facts & circumstances of the case, may be stayed, as well.

5. Counsel further submits that three items "Harpic (Disinfectant Toilet Cleaner)", "Lizol (Disinfectant Floor Cleaner)" & "Dettol" came up for consideration for assessment year 2006-07 and it was held that they are not covered by Entries 21/29 of Schedule IV of VAT Act but being covered by residuary entry under Schedule V of VAT Act hence they are entitled to pay tax @ 12.5% instead of 4%; as such question for consideration as to whether these three items (supra) do fall within residuary entry in Schedule V or within Entries 21/29/47 of Schedule IV of the VAT Act, is purely a legal question involving interpretation of provisions of the VAT Act, therefore, remedy of appeal being available to the petitioners cannot be said to be efficacious in the facts & circumstances of instant case.

6. Respondents have entered into a caveat and filed reply to the writ petitions raising preliminary objection that once remedy of appeal is available Under section 82 and further appeal lies before Tax Board Under section 83 of VAT Act, where question of interpretation can certainly be examined; in such circumstances, ordinarily this Court may not like to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India; more so, when statutory right of appeal is available to the petitioners.

7. Counsel for respondents further submits that Under section 82 of VAT Act, appeal shall lie unless the assessee submits satisfactory proof of deposit of 10% of remaining demand over & above the admitted tax or other amounts and in case of ex-parte assessment order, it is 5% of remaining demand over & above the admitted tax; and to circumvent statutory requirement of appeal by not depositing 10% of remaining demand over & above admitted tax, petitioners have approached by way of instant petitions.

8. Counsel for respondents further submits that if an appeal preferred Under section 82 to the appellate authority is decided, yet remedy of appeal Under section 83 of VAT Act is available before Tax Board. Counsel submits that same very petitioners filed Org. Tax Appeal No.6/2006 before Kerala High Court assailing order of Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) in regard to same issue as has come up for consideration be