JUDGMENT Datta, J.: This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. dated March 9, 1972 discharging Civil Revision No. 6437W/68. The facts according to the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner is the proprietor of a Hotel and Restaurant carrying on business of licensed bar and restaurant. The petitioner is registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941, the relevant registration certificate, being No. SL/332 A. The petitioner sells for consumption of Indian and foreign liquors as also food to consumers at the said place and very rarely sells soft drinks in sealed bottles and containers on which sales tax is paid. The petitioner supplies free aerated, mineral or soda water to consumers of drinks and salad to consumers of food for which no charge is made. The petitioner also supplies cooked food not exceeding Rs. 1.50 to customers against vouchers and cash memos kept in the usual course of business. The respondent No.1 Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah charge (herein referred to as Commercial Tax Officer) for the year ending in December 1964 disbelieved the sale vouchers relating to cooked food and by order dated May 14, 1968 in Case No. 84 of 1965-66 added back Rs. 10,000/- to taxable sales on the ground that the said amount related to sales of cooked food effected to persons at a time and exceeded Rs. 1.50 in each transaction. The petitioner contended that the order of assessment was illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of natural justice and also in contumacious disregard of observations made by this Court in another civil rule. This assessment was based on suspicion and conjecture and all documents having been produced the onus of proving taxability lay on the authorities which was not discharged. On these allegations the petitioner moved this Court by an application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution and the connected rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not issue quashing the impugned order and proceedings and also why a writ of Mandamus should not issue forbearing the respondents from giving effect to the same. 2. The respondents contested the Rule and an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer denying the material allegations. 2. The respondents contested the Rule and an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer denying the material allegations. It was stated that the petitioner as a supplier of cooked food was entitled to purchase free of tax soda, aerated or mineral water for sale, as also cooking materials against declaration forms. The petitioner did not pay sales tax on lime juice supplied to customers which were separately charged. Charges for supply of aerated mineral or soda water to drinkers were included in the price of drinks. The petitioner's use of declaration forms were not recorded in the records of the office. The petitioner in his return for the year ending with December 1964 showed the gross turn over at about Rs. 3.79 lakhs claiming exemption for about Rs. 3-78 lakhs taxable sale, being Rs. 1088- 73 for mineral water. It was found on examination of books of account that lime juice cordial was sold for Rs. 982/86 p. and sale was estimated at Rs. 1100/-. In regard to cooked food manufactured and sold no books of account were produced to show manufacturing and production account nor quantitative details were furnished nor menu or price list even were produced. The return accordingly was held as incorrect and the gross turnover was enhanced by Rs. 10,000/- over book figure which was added back to the taxable sales. The cash memos did not bear any particulars about the customers and, could not be verified. The petitioner preferred no appeal against this assessment order and accordingly the application was not maintainable in law. It was denied that there was any contumacious observation regarding the judgment of this court and the directions given therein were fully honoured. It was submitted that the assessment was reasonable, proper bona fide and valid and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that proper accounts were not maintained nor produced and onus for exemption for taxability was on the petitioner which was not discharged. For these reasons it was submitted that the petitioner was entitled to no relief. It appears that there was no affidavit-in-reply against this affidavit filed by the petitioner. 3. By his judgment the learned Judge held that the assessment wa, made after hearing the petitioner. For these reasons it was submitted that the petitioner was entitled to no relief. It appears that there was no affidavit-in-reply against this affidavit filed by the petitioner. 3. By his judgment the learned Judge held that the assessment wa, made after hearing the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 had given reasons why he did not accept the assertion of the petitioner that mineral waters were supplied free with drinks. There was no error of jurisdiction nor any error patent on record. The same applied to cooked food and as according to the Commercial Tax Officer petitioner did not submit correct return he was free to make honest guess work and he took into consideration past records. There was no error of jurisdiction or any basis for allegation that action was arbitrary or malafide. Further there was no contumacious observation with regard to the judgment of this Court in the other Rule. It was further found that the dispute related to the quantum and no question of principle was involved nor was there any explanation why the remedies under the Act were not availed of. The Court was of opinion that the petitioner should have availed of the remedies under the Act which provided adequate remedies. The Rule "accordingly was discharged. The propriety of this order is challenged in this appeal. 4. The petitioner in his petition did not explain the reasons for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court without availing himself of the remedies provided in the Act. Mr. Gopal Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petititioner appellant contended that the alternative remedy is not a bar to the writ proceedings particularly when it involves the question of jurisdiction affecting the fundamental right of the petitioner to carryon trade. He submitted an authority of the decision in (1) M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur AIR 1972 SC 2379 that an error of law involves a question of jurisdiction as when an order is passed without having due regard to the provisions of law or principles of natural justice or taking account of matters which it was not directed to take into account. In the instant case it was contended that the Commercial Tax Officer acted illegally in rejecting the cash memos or vouchers produced by the petitioner. In the instant case it was contended that the Commercial Tax Officer acted illegally in rejecting the cash memos or vouchers produced by the petitioner. The authority also did at no time require the petitioner to maintain accounts in particular way as provided in section 13 and accordingly was not entitled to reject the accounts and other documents produced by him. Further the assessments were made without basis and on mere conjectures and were not honest guess work. These according to Mr. Chakraborty are jurisdictional errors and for setting aside such jurisdictional errors the application under Article 226(1) was maintainable. 5. In (2) Champalal Binani v. Commissioners of Income Tax West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 645 , the Supreme Court observed that when the order is exfacie with jurisdicti0n the High Court will require a strong case to be made out for issuing a writ. The observation relating to Income Tax Act apply to Sales Tax laws with equal force, the only accepted exceptions being that the order on the face of it is erroneous or raises a question of jurisdiction or is in infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner or against the principles of natural justice. In the case we are concerned with that there is no error apparent on the face of order nor any violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was given due hearing. There is also no question of violation of fundamental right as the vires of the Act has not been challenged and only particular assessment have been assailed. Any error of law as the like alleged here even if made by the competent authority will not as at present advised involve a question of jurisdiction. In M. L. Selhis case the Court noted certain English decisions the practical effect of which is that any material error of law is to be reckoned as jurisdictional error. It was also noted therein that there is no yard stick to determine the magnitude of the error other than the opinion or the court. The Supreme Court in that case proceeded to examine the impugned order in the light of the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if lack of jurisdiction is assumed to result from every material error of law within the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in that case proceeded to examine the impugned order in the light of the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if lack of jurisdiction is assumed to result from every material error of law within the Court's jurisdiction. It was however not the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case that every material or vital error of law committed by a court or tribunal acting within jurisdiction is a jurisdictional error and the decisions holding such view were only noted and discussed. 6. We are therefore of opinion that the impugned order was within jurisdiction and no strong case or even any case has been made out for not availing the remedies provided in the statute and as such the instant application was not maintainable in law. 7. Mr. Chakravarty referred to the decision (3) Hriday Narain v, ITC Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 in which it was held that if the High Court entertained a writ petition against an order not subject to appeal but only to revision. Such application could not be rejected as not maintainable. In the case before us, under the said act an appeal lay before the appropriate authority against the impugned order and accordingly the above cited case has no application to the facts of the case. Coming to the merits as far as necessary it appears that under section 6 of the Act no sale tax is payable under the Act for sale of goods specified in the first column of schedule I subject to exceptions therein. Cooked food sold at one time to a person at a price not more than Rs. 1. 50 is included in the said 1st column and is as such exempted from payment of sales tax. The petitioner contended that no food was supplied in the hotel and restaurant at one time to a person exceeding Rs. 1.50. The Commercial Tax Officer disbelieved the case on the ground that it was improbable and no menu card was produced. The conclusion was reached that sale of taxable cooked food was not recorded in books and no manufacturing or production account or quantitative details of raw material or finished; goods were produced. 1.50. The Commercial Tax Officer disbelieved the case on the ground that it was improbable and no menu card was produced. The conclusion was reached that sale of taxable cooked food was not recorded in books and no manufacturing or production account or quantitative details of raw material or finished; goods were produced. The Commercial Tax Officer has thus given his reasons for not accepting the case made out the petitioner and this Court in writ jurisdiction is not a court of appeal to examine the correctness or otherwise or the validity of the order free from any patent error or blemish. The other objection relates to the enhancement of the sale price by Rs. 10,000/- as taxable sales of cooked food effected to person at a time exceeding Rs. 1.50 in each individual transaction. It was submitted that there was no material for such assessment which was thus not honest guess work as required under the law. The Commercial Tax Officer bas stated that the assessments were made after consideration of the past records. The petitioner bas not disclosed even in his petition or affidavit his past taxable sales of cooked food. It is thus not possible to hold, even if it was permissible for us to do, that there was no honest guess work in making the assessments. Mr. Chakravorty bas further contended that the Commercial Tax Officer erred in bolding that the petitioner did not produce relevant accounts regarding manufacture of cooked food, as he was never required under section 13. This section it appears, is inapplicable to the present case, as, has been stated by the Commercial Tax Officer, no manufacturing or production account of quantitative details of raw materials were at all filed by the petitioner. 8. Mr. Chakraborty further referred to the decision in (4) Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Gamtur Tobacoos Ltd, AIR 1965 S C 1396 in which it was laid down that the burden of proving a taxable sale in the admitted transactions was on the taxing authority. We are unable to see how the case assists the petitioner as here the Commercial Tax Officer has disbelieved the return about sale of cooked food manufactured and sold to consumers when no accounts in respect thereof were produced. We are unable to see how the case assists the petitioner as here the Commercial Tax Officer has disbelieved the return about sale of cooked food manufactured and sold to consumers when no accounts in respect thereof were produced. The petitioner submitted that such papers were irrelevant and unnecessary, but the Commercial-tax Officer proceeded to assess and assessed on the basis of past records which is to be accepted as honest guess work and not based on conjecture. There is no question of onus being on the taxing authority as con tended by the petitioner in the circumstances. 9. For all these reasons, as ail contentions raised on behalf of the appellant fail, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let the operation of the order be stayed till December 7, 1974 as prayed for. Ray, J.: I agree.