ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh refusing to grant copies of certain documents which are required by the petitioner for production before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur, in his assessment case. 2. The petitioner is the All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay, which has its branch office at Nagpur. It is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and is a dealer in the State holding a certificate of registration under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, for the business of printing and publishing. 3. In Memorandum No. St-1/7513, dated the 29th November, 1950, the Sales Tax Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, conveyed to all Regional Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax the decision of Government that (1) where the cost of paper and the cost of services have shown by the printing presses in their bills to the customers, they should be assessed only on the value of paper shown in the bills and cost of services should be tax-free; and (2) where the cost of paper has not been shown separately, a fair estimate should be made and the dealer assessed to tax on it. However, these concessions appear to have been withdrawn by Government. The decision was notified in the Press Note No. 65, dated Nagpur, the 25th July, 1952, relevant part of which is reproduced below :- "Recently the Board Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, have passed two orders regarding the 'sale price' of a printer, one on the application No. 11/XXXIII-7 of 1951 of the Rajasthan Printing and Litho Works, Akola, and the other on the Application No. 28/XXXIII-7/51 D.B. of Shri Balgovind Gupta, Proprietor of Shubhachintak Press, Jabalpur. The State Government have since reconsidered the position regarding the printing presses in the light of the Board's above cited decisions and have been pleased to modify the instructions contained in para 2 above, and as a result deduction on account of labour charges is no longer permissible." 4. In its application dated the 30th July, 1952, the petitioner requisitioned the Secretary of Separate Revenue Department, Madhya Pradesh, for grant of copies of the instructions, if any, issued by the office of the Sales Tax Commissioner modifying the previous Memorandum No. St-1/7513 dated the 29th November, 1950. In its application dated the 30th July, 1952, the petitioner requisitioned the Secretary of Separate Revenue Department, Madhya Pradesh, for grant of copies of the instructions, if any, issued by the office of the Sales Tax Commissioner modifying the previous Memorandum No. St-1/7513 dated the 29th November, 1950. Similar application, dated the 1st August, 1952, was made by the petitioner to the Government of Madhya Pradesh for copies of any State orders on the subject and also of the documents covered by its previous application, dated the 30th July, 1952. After keeping the matter under consideration for a long time, the State Government, by an order, dated the 21st February, 1953, rejected the petitioner's request for grant of copies. The petitioner impugns in these proceedings the said order. 5. The petition must be rejected in limine on the short ground that the remedy provided in the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, for production of the documents has not been availed of. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Commissioner or any person appointed to assist him under sub-section (1) of Section 3, to compel the production of documents and invests him with powers of a Court of Civil jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose. It was admitted before us that no application was made in the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in the assessment case. Under rule 3, Part II, of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Rules, 1947, read with Section 3(1) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax before whom the assessment proceedings are pending, is an officer contemplated by Section 20, invested with the powers of a Civil Court to compel production of documents. As the State Government has refused to grant copies of the required documents, the petitioner has the remedy under the Act to move the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax for compelling their production, if they are really necessary for the just and fair disposal of the assessment case. That remedy is equally efficacious and expeditious, and, therefore, it must first be exhausted before the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 are invoked. 6. The application is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case we make on order as to costs. The petitioner would be entitled to refund of the outstanding amount of the security. Application dismissed.