JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the two show cause notices, (Documents No. 15 and No. 16) both dated 12-5-1987, whereby the petitioners have been directed to show cause why assessment made by the Regional Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Jabalpur be not enhanced by exercising powers under Section 38 (5) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and further to show cause as to why for deliberate concealment and manipulation * of the accounts which has resulted in evading tax, penalty under Section 43 (1) of the Act be not imposed. The petitioners have also filed LA. No. 3380/87 for staying the further proceedings pending before the respondent No. 4, Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Jabalpur restraining him from continuing the proceedings on the basis of the said two show cause notices. (Documents No. 15 and No. 16 ). ( 2. ) THE petitioners have thus only come up against the said two show cause notices before this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 3. ) THE facts as stated by the petitioners are as under : The petitioner No. 1 S-A. E. (India) Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying on the business of fabricating and galvanising steel structurals and plates. ( 4. ) FOR the Assessment Year 1981-82 for the State case and another under the Central Sales Tax Act, assessment has been done by the respondent No. 5 and assessment for the period commencing from 1-7-1982 to 30-6-1983 has also been done against which the petitioners have preferred regular appeals under Section 38 of the Act before the respondent No. 4, Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. ( 5. ) DURING the pendency of the appeals it has been found that the Regional Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, while making assessment, has not taken into consideration other aspects of the case and the assessing officer had wrongly excluded certain transactions in the assessment. It is also found that the turnover determined is not consistent with the total purchase. Not only this but it has also been found that false accounts have been produced and as such the petitioners have evaded tax. It is also found that the turnover determined is not consistent with the total purchase. Not only this but it has also been found that false accounts have been produced and as such the petitioners have evaded tax. Even it has been found that certain deductions have been allowed in favour of the petitioners despite the fact that there is no documentary proof on record to support those deductions, inasmuch as for the articles exported outside the territory of India, i. e. Bhutan, worth about Rs. 80 lakhs, no certificates for exemption were produced. Even for inter-State sales, the c forms produced were defective, inasmuch as, photostat copy of c form No. C/7 456610 was filed whereas only the original c form can be accepted, but not the photostat copy. In maintaining accounts the petitioners have not shown the total receipt of the goods from their customers under the contract and have also not disclosed the total purchase or imports, considering the total receipts disclosed in the balance sheet. Thus, the respondent No. 4 Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax found that there was gross irregularity and bungling in keeping records properly and maintaining the same correctly and as such the petitioners have evaded payment of sales-tax. Therefore, vide documents No. 15 and No. 16, two show cause notices were issued, during the pendency of the appeal as provided under Section 38 (5) (a) of the Act, to the petitioners. ( 6. ) SHRI Mukhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly contended that the respondent No. 4 committed an error of law in issuing two show cause notices for enhancement of tax, inasmuch as the grounds taken into consideration by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax are not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the issuing of the said two show cause notices under Section 38 (5) (a) of the Act, is without jurisdiction. ( 7. ) A perusal of the show cause notices (Documents No. 15 and No. 16) reveals that the respondent No. 5 while considering the accounts kept by the petitioners and the c form produced by them and taking into consideration the other factual aspects of the case, has tentatively reached the conclusion and on that basis has issued the two show cause notices. The provisions of Section 38 (5) (a) of the Act are emphatic which empower the appellate authority to issue show cause notice in relation to enhancement, of assessment or imposing penalty. As such the Appellate Authority has acted within its jurisdiction, considering the provisions referred to above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the two show cause notices issued by the Appellate Authority are without jurisdiction. Besides this, the petitioners shall get full opportunity while filing reply to the two show cause notices, to explain if the same are unjustified. The two show cause notices involve factual considerations which cannot be investigated in writ jurisdiction. ( 8. ) SHRI Mukhi further contended that if the Appellate Authority is allowed to proceed with the assessment notices and if the Appellate Authority imposes tax, as stated in the two show cause notices, the petitioners while preferring appeal against the. assessment, will be required to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs in respect of assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 1. 38 crores in respect of the assessement year 1982-83, before the petitioners appeal can be entertained. ( 9. ) TO make deposit of the tax amount is a condition precedent to file appeal. This cannot be circumvented in coming up before this Court directly in writ jurisdiction, specially when the remedy is provided in the statute itself to redress the wrong done to the petitioners. ( 10. ) IN similar situation, the Apex Court of the land in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr v. State of Orissa and Anr. , AIR 1983 SC 603 has held that where alternative remedy is provided, being efficacious remedy, by way of appeal and second appeal, that must be resorted to and petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be entertained directly. Titaghur Paper Mills case (supra) is also a case in which show cause notices were issued and it has been ruled therein that against show cause notice, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. That being so, merely the petitioners would be required to deposit certain amount in lakhs or crores, which is mandatory while filing appeal, the petitioners cannot be allowed to circumvent the mandatory provisions by coming up in writ jurisdiction directly. This submission of Shri Mukhi fails and is hereby repelled. ( 11. That being so, merely the petitioners would be required to deposit certain amount in lakhs or crores, which is mandatory while filing appeal, the petitioners cannot be allowed to circumvent the mandatory provisions by coming up in writ jurisdiction directly. This submission of Shri Mukhi fails and is hereby repelled. ( 11. ) BESIDES the aforesaid reasons for dismissing the petition, this Court is of the opinion that where revenue recovery is involved, may be in lakhs or crores, the Court should be slow in entertaining the matter directly in writ jurisdiction and staying the recovery proceedings. In such cases stay of recovery proceedings tells upon the national economy which brings imbalance to State or even National budget and extends encouragement to recalcitrant tax payers in evading tax and utilising the same for multiplying their business activities. ( 12. ) IT is to be noted that while issuing show cause notice for enhancement or even for evading tax, etc. , in such cases the Authorities are expected to issue show cause notice under Section 46 of the Act as well so that the real evaders of tax be suitably dealt with by imposing fine or awarding imprisonment as the case may be. ( 13. ) WITH the aforesaid observations, this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed summarily without issuing notice to the other side. Consequently, LA. No. 3380/87 stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No. 4 Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur to submit their reply to the show cause notices on 29-6-1987.