K. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been filed by Shree Bhagwati Roller flour Mills, Station Road, Mainpuri, for certiorari quashing the provisional assessment orders dated 18th November, 1985 (annexures 16 to 23) and the proviso to Government notification dated 18th July, 1979. ( 2 ) WE have considered the validity of the notification dated 18th July, 1979, in the connected writ Petition No. 312 of 1985, Shree Laxmi Distributing Agency v. State of U. P. [1987] 66 STC 112 (All.), decided on 19th December, 1986 and for the reasons given in that writ petition, we do not find any force in the contention that the proviso of the said notification, which runs as under, is liable to be struck off : . . . Provided that such wheat is purchased from the Food Corporation of India. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners had admitted that the notification when it was issued was valid. It is on account of the subsequent change of the policy of the Central Government permitting purchase of wheat from the open market that the discretion has arisen. We have found no merit in this argument in the connected writ petition. ( 4 ) THE next question raised by the petitioners was about the benefit of the notification dated 29th january, 1985, exempting the new units from payment of sales tax under the Act up to 31st march, 1990. The petitioners had claimed benefit of the aforesaid notification before the Sales tax Officer, who made provisional assessment orders under Rule 41 (5) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer while dealing with the claim of exemption under Section 4-B rejected the same by observing : 1under the notification issued so far under Section 3c (1) roller flour mills have not been exempted from purchase tax on purchase of wheat from open market. As has been clarified by the dealer, he has not purchased the above stock from the Food Corporation of India. From the above discussion it is clear that the dealer has wilfully not deposited the purchase tax on the purchase of wheat from open market. ( 5 ) THE further ground for rejection was given in the other provisional assessment orders, which have been challenged by means of this writ petition. From the above discussion it is clear that the dealer has wilfully not deposited the purchase tax on the purchase of wheat from open market. ( 5 ) THE further ground for rejection was given in the other provisional assessment orders, which have been challenged by means of this writ petition. ( 6 ) IF the petitioners were aggrieved by the assessment orders, their remedy lay in filing appeal under Section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, as Aand Ors. icle 226 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent statutory procedures. While dealing with the requirement of availability of alternative remedy, the Supreme Court held in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330 : 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. The supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice needs to be strongly discouraged. ( 7 ) FOR what we have said above that if, apart from the invalidity of the notification dated 18th july, 1979, the petitioner had any other point against the assessment orders, it should have filed appeals against the same. ( 8 ) THE writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily. Interim stay order, if any, is discharged. 1. Hindi version translated in English. .