R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the assessment orders for the financial year 1995-96 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tenughat Circle, Phusro, under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Prayer for quashing the demand notices issued pursuant to the said assessment orders, has also been made. It has also challenged the validity of Sub-section (3) of Section 45 of the Act whereby admission of appeal filed against an assessment order has been barred, unless 20 per cent of the tax assessed or the admitted tax whichever is greater is paid.
(2.) The learned S.C. I., at the threshold, has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this application on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions, namely, (i) the impugned assessment orders are arbitrary having shown inflated sales without any ground reality and without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and (ii) in view of Section 45(3) of the Act, the petitioner cannot file an appeal because it cannot be admitted, unless 20 per cent of the tax assessed is deposited by it.
(3.) Against assessment order, an appeal lies under Section 45 of the Act. The appeal being efficacious and adequate remedy, we cannot entertain this application merely because 20 per cent of the tax assessed is to be deposited by the petitioner. The question as to whether the impugned assessment orders contain inflated sales is a question which can more appropriately be decided in appeal on the basis of the materials produced by the parties. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the assessment orders, it has to challenge the same before the appellate authority. It is not open to it to by-pass the statutory remedy. In Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) ; AIR 1985 SC 330 the Supreme Court has laid down as under : "..........Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance, where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it, that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters......";