MANASH NATH ROY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal from original order, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th April, 1979, passed in C. R. No. 897 (W) of 1973, by a learned Judge of this Court. ( 2 ) BEFORE we deal with the submissions as made on behalf of the appellants, we must keep it on record that though the appeal was made ready as regards service, on 10th February, 1984 and on the same date it was placed in the general list, nobody appeared for the writ petitioner-respondents, to oppose the appeal. ( 3 ) THE subject-matter of challenge in the concerned writ application was at the instance of M/s. Mangilal Rungta, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and which carried on the business as mentioned in the petition at 16, Kalakar Street, Calcutta and such challenge was directed against an order of assessment dated 26th March, 1973 and consequent issue of the notice of demand by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bobbili, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It should be noted further, that the said order was passed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. ( 4 ) IT was stated by the writ petitioners that their business consisted, inter alia, of exporting chrome ores and although they were registered as a dealer within the meaning of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, they were not registered as dealer under the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was their further case that at all material times, no person was granted licence by the Government of India, for the purpose of exporting mineral ores and they have stated that any person intending to export any metal or mineral, was required to do so, through the Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd. , which would hereinafter be referred to as the said M. M. T. C. was in fact performing the function which was used to be performed by the State Trading Corporation. ( 5 ) THE writ petitioners have also stated that they agreed to sell and M/s. Philipp Brothers (Overseas) A. G. , Baurstrasse 59 C. H. 63001, Z. U. G. (Switzerland), which would hereafter be referred to as foreign buyer, had agreed to purchase chrome ores from them and in pursuance to the concerned agreement, on or about 8th February, 1966, a contract was entered into by and between the said foreign buyer and the petitioners in Calcutta, whereby it was, inter alia, agreed that the petitioners would sell 12,000 metric tonnes of chrome ores (plus or minus 5 per cent at seller's option) to the said foreign buyer at 21 U. S. dollars for per dry metric ton f. o. b. loaded and trimmed steamer at Vizagapatnam and the destination of such chrome ores was to be U. S. A. , Western Europe, Japan and all permissible destinations excepting East European countries, with which the Government of India had rupee agreements. The payment was to be 25 per cent of the provisional invoice value against presentation of usual shipping documents. The balance payment was to be made on the basis of sampling weights moisture analysis determined at destination. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge has, in fact, in his judgment, referred to the purchase note and other terms of the contract. Before him, on the facts of the case, it was contended firstly, that the sales in the instant case took place in the course of export and, therefore, they were not amenable to tax in the manner as was done in view of the provisions of Article 286 of the Constitution of India and also in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. It was secondly contended that in any event the sales were inter-State sales and were liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and as such, could not be taxed in the manner as was done by the Commercial Tax Officer concerned and thirdly, it was contended that the sales in question, in any event, did not take place in Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction. The respondents in the writ petition contended before the learned trial Judge that under Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, there was a provision for appeal and the writ petitioner had not taken resort to the said provision. It was contended also by the respondents before the learned trial Judge, that in view of the amended provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners had an alternative remedy, which they did not avail of, therefore, they are not entitled to seek any relief in the application. Apart from the above, it was further contended that in view of Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules framed by this Court for disposal of the matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as a writ of certiorari has been asked for, quashing the proceeding/assessment, which had been made in the State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court had no jurisdiction, because the concerned records were lying outside their jurisdiction and it was also contended that in this case, the property in the goods had passed at the port of Vizagapatnam and therefore, the sale took place within the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, to impose tax and since the sale to the said M. M. T. C. by the petitioner, was separate and independent from the bargain with the said foreign buyer, the sale of the petitioners to the said M. M. T. C. could not be considered to be sale in the course of export entitling exemption either under Article 286 of the Constitution of India or under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. After referring to the celebrated decisions of the Supreme Court, including the one in the case of Coffee Board v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras [1970] 25 STC 528 and after distinguishing the said case in the facts of the present one, the learned Judge, by his judgment and order, as impeached, made the rule absolute and to the extent as indicated therein, without any order as to costs. ( 7 ) AS indicated earlier, there has been no appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondents in the appeal, Mr. ( 7 ) AS indicated earlier, there has been no appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondents in the appeal, Mr. Dutta appearing in support of the appeal, pointed out that the whole question in the instant case would be, to find out whether the sale in the instant case was in the course of export or not and he further contended that since the order complained of was an action as taken in the matter of imposing the tax at Vizagapatnam within the State of Andhra Pradesh and more particularly when the transaction was outside the jurisdiction of this State, this High Court had no jurisdiction either to entertain the writ petition or to make any order on the same. It was further claimed by Mr. Dutta, that Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act deals with assessment and Section 19 of the same refers to appeals which should be regarded as the complete relief. He also referred to Section 20 of that Act, which speaks of revision and on a reference to those sections, Mr. Dutta claimed that since the statute in question, affords complete relief and such relief has not been sought to be availed of by the writ petitioners, this Court should not have made any interference by the concerned judgment or in the manner as has been done. He further claimed that the distinction which the learned Judge has made of the Coffee Board's case [1970] 25 STC 528 (SC), was not appropriate and in fact, the same was contrary to the judgment in the case of Madras Marine and Co. v. State of Madras [1986] 63 STC 169 (SC ). The appellant/petitioner-company in that case was a dealer in stores, doing business as ship chandlers, imported goods from foreign countries on the undertaking to supply them only to foreign going vessels and/or to diplomatic personnel and to receive the goods in customs bonded warehouse. After import of the goods, the company kept them in bonded warehouses in the State of Tamil Nadu. On receipt of an order from the captain of a foreign bound ship requiring ship stores, the company supplied the goods on board the ship. After import of the goods, the company kept them in bonded warehouses in the State of Tamil Nadu. On receipt of an order from the captain of a foreign bound ship requiring ship stores, the company supplied the goods on board the ship. The company contended that no sales tax was payable on such sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, because (i) the goods were all intended for re-export only and were at all times in a bonded warehouse, the delivery was on board a foreign going ship and the goods were to be consumed on the high seas; the property in the goods passed only after the goods had crossed the customs frontiers and did not pass in Tamil Nadu and the sales were, therefore, in the course of export; and (ii) the sales took place in territorial waters of India within the jurisdiction of the Union of India and outside Tamil Nadu. The sales tax authorities held that the sales took place in Tamil Nadu where appropriation of the goods took place and imposed sales tax. For the year 1964-65; the Tribunal held that the sales could not be deemed to have been taken place within Tamil Nadu. On revision, the High Court held that the sales took place in Tamil Nadu and the assessment to tax was valid. There were similar decisions of the High Court upholding the assessment to tax for the years 1968-69, 1970-71, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The company preferred appeals to the Supreme Court for the years 1964-65, 1968-69 and 1970-71 and filed petitions for special leave to appeal for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80. For the year 1972-73 the company filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the decision of the appellate authorities and on such facts affirming the decisions of the High Court and dismissing the writ petition and special leave petitions, it has been observed that, as the goods were in bonded warehouses within the State of Tamil Nadu in the case of ascertained goods at the time when the contract of sale was made and in the case of unascertained goods at the time of their appropriation to the contract by the company, the sales must be deemed to be within the State of Tamil Nadu under Section 4 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Delivery on board the foreign bound ship within the territorial waters did not make the sale one outside the State of Tamil Nadu. This was not a case of export as there was no destination for the goods in a foreign country, apart from indicating that the customs barrier does not set a terminal limit to the territory of the State for sales tax purposes. A sale, therefore, beyond the customs barrier may still be a sale within the State. Mr. Dutta further pointed out that in view of the character of the two contracts in the instant case or the terms thereof, the distinction, as was sought to be made by the learned trial Judge of the Coffee Board's case [1970] 25 STC 528 (SC), was not proper. In fact, he pointed out that the first contract in the instant case was between the said M. M. T. C. and M/s. Mangilal Rungta and the second one was between the said M. M. T. C. and the foreign buyer and those agreements were and are silent about agency or any integrated contract. In fact, he pointed out that in the two agreements, there is no mention about any agency or of any sale in case of export or the said integrated contract, as mentioned hereinbefore. Mr. Dutta's specific submission was that since the Commercial Tax Officer concerned, considered the contracts and the terms thereof and more particularly of the sale by M/s. Mangilal Rungta, to the said M. M. T. C, which took place at Vizaga patnam, there was, therefore, no want of jurisdiction or any question of invalid dealings. It was also pointed out by him that the question of agency in the instant case was immaterial and such fact for consideration would not be available in the contract in question. On merits also, Mr. Dutta claimed the assessment order in the instant case to be due, legal and proper. ( 8 ) ON the submissions as made on behalf of the appellants by Mr. Dutta, thus we shall have to see whether this Court has or had jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. In support of his submissions, that in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition was barred. Mr. Dutta referred to the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Dutta, thus we shall have to see whether this Court has or had jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. In support of his submissions, that in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition was barred. Mr. Dutta referred to the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1983 SC 603 . That was a case, which was initiated against the order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, whereunder the petitioner/assessee, could get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of and it has been observed by the Supreme Court, that when the Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, the impugned orders of assessment could only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it is now well-recognised, that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only, must be availed of. On the analogy of the determinations of the Supreme Court as incorporated above, Mr. Dutta claimed that since under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the writ petitioners had adequate remedies under the relevant statutes, so without exhausting them, they could not have approached this Court or this Court could not have entertained the writ petition. ( 9 ) WHILE on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, to entertain the present petition, Mr. Dutta pointed out, in support of his submissions or for supplementing them, that in the facts and circumstances of this case and as indicated hereinafter, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Dutta in fact referred to the case of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289 . Dutta in fact referred to the case of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289 . There, the Supreme Court has observed that mere service in the State of West Bengal, of notice under Section 52 (2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (35 of 1959) on the owner of a land situated in the State of Rajasthan, intimating of the State Government's proposal to acquire that land for public purpose, does not constitute an integral part of cause of action, sufficient to invest the Calcutta High Court with jurisdiction, to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the notification acquiring the land. It has also been observed by the Supreme Court, that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant and the notification as issued in that case by the State Government under Section 52 (1) of the Act, became effective, the moment it was published in the official Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Governtment free from all encumbrances. On such facts as mentioned above, it has further been observed by the Supreme Court that the rule nisi issued by this Court on the petition and the ad interim ex parte prohi-bitory order restraining the State Government from taking any steps to take possession of the land as acquired, were therefore liable to be set aside. It should be noted that while making such observations, the Supreme Court has also referred to the determinations in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330 and those in the case of Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das AIR 1984 SC 653 , for the purpose as indicated in the judgment. Mr. Dutta pointed out that all proceedings in the instant case to be initiated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and only a notice as in the case of Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289 , was served here at Calcutta, such service according to him, would not give jurisdiction to this Court to entertain the writ petition, as such service would not give rise to a "cause of action", arising in part. ( 10 ) WE are of the view that Titaghur Paper Mills' case AIR 1983 SC 603 would have been distinguished and even if on such determination, this Court could be moved, if the orders impeached was either void or a nullity. Since we are of the view that the order as issued in this case was neither void nor a nullity, the determination in Titaghur Paper Mills' case AIR 1983 SC 603 would stand in the way of the writ petitioners, to have their petition maintained in this Court. We are also of the view that following the determination in Swaika Properties' case AIR 1985 SC 1289 , this Court cannot be said to have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the facts of this case. ( 11 ) SUCH and above being our views, we feel that this appeal should be allowed, holding that the concerned writ petition was not maintainable in this Court on the grounds as indicated hereinbefore and as such, the learned Judge was wrong in allowing the writ petition and making the rule absolute. Thus, this appeal is allowed with the observations, that if so advised, the writ petitioners may approach to appropriate forum for their redress. ( 12 ) WE keep it on record that, save as aforesaid, we have not dealt with the merits of the case and all points as involved are kept open.