JUDGMENT S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - Ex parte ad interim temporary injunction at the instance of the plaintiff having been made absolute, this appeal has been filed by the defendants. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the State of Orissa and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are its officers. Suit has been filed in the trade name of a business carried on by Jaya Krushan Brahmachari. A business carried on in a trade name is neither an individual nor a juristic person and accordingly, the suit by the trade name is incompetent. However, on perusal of the plaint I find that in fact Jaya Krushan has filed the suit. The question of competency to file the suit ought to have been examined before admitting the plaint. Since the plaint has been admitted, the trial court shall give an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend it, by correctly describing the plaintiff and making consequential amendments in the body of the plaint if necessary. 3. Plaintiff is a "Dealer" under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He carries on business of sale and pnrchase of diesel, petrol and other lubricants being the sole agent of the Indian Oil Company having its godown at Cuttack. Plaintiff makes the payment of the price of the goods with the various taxes in advance to the company and brings petrol and diesel, etc., in a tanker through road from company's godown at Cuttack. Plaintiff was registered as a dealer under the Act. However, in 1977, concerned authorities called upon him to surrender the certificate and after being surrendered the certificate has not been renewed nor returned to the plaintiff by the authorities. 4. Plaintiff has admitted that he has been assessed under the Act for the years 1978-79 to 1983-84 as an unregistered dealer demanding a sum of Rs. 1,20,488 from him. Recovery of the said amount is sought to be resisted in the suit alleging essentially that on account of mala fides of defendant No. 4 who is the Sales Tax Officer defendant No. 3 to ruin the plaintiff, actions have been taken. Defendant No. 4 is annoyed with the plaintiff. Since being rigid in principles, the plaintiff did not oblige the unreasonable request of defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 is annoyed with the plaintiff. Since being rigid in principles, the plaintiff did not oblige the unreasonable request of defendant No. 4. Accordingly, defendant No. 4 became hostile and defendant No. 2 being a personal friend of defendant No. 4 acted in concert to put the plaintiff to unnecessary loss and harassment to strangle and ruin his business and otherwise defame and discredit him. Plaintiff claims that he was not given any notice to produce accounts for assessment and demands were made for six years by manipulating and antedating records to make a show of procedural regularity. It was also challenged that the demand under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act is not justified since that Act is ultra wires. Added to it, the plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 2,00,000 from defendant No. 4. 5. Trial court passed an ex parte ad interim order of injunction which continued till it was made absolute by the impugned order. Trial court has held that the plaintiff has a prime facie case and would suffer irreparable injury in case such a huge amount is taken from the plaintiff and therefore, the balance of convenience would be in favour of granting the injunction. 6. After hearing both the parties, I have no doubt that the ex parte order of injunction was passed on account of the casual and indifferent attitude of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and inaction of their superior officers to have effective check and inspection of the offices. Learned Standing Counsel could not also satisfy me why demands based on assessments for 1978-79 to 1983-84, remained so long for collection. No man is ideal to bring out money from his pocket voluntarily. By long dealing since 1947, the administration of commercial taxes should have experienced the same. Legislature has provided for coercive step only in this background and the Act has been amended from time to time to meet the expediency of early collection of taxes. It is really surprising that in Puri town itself where the offices of the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner are situated a dealer in petrol products remained unregistered from 1978 till 1984 without any step having been taken to get him registered, although the Act and Rules make adequate provision for action being taken. It is really surprising that in Puri town itself where the offices of the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner are situated a dealer in petrol products remained unregistered from 1978 till 1984 without any step having been taken to get him registered, although the Act and Rules make adequate provision for action being taken. Habituated with such casual behaviour of the administration not only the plaintiff, but any dealer would feel frustrated when a huge demand is made at a time and a drastic step under section 13-A is suddenly taken. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 ought to have brought to the notice of the court how in spite of vigilance the plaintiff was not paying the amount. It will not be wholly unreasonable for the plaintiff to surmise that the unreasonable request of defendant No. 4 not being complied with, the annoyance might be there since for long the plaintiff was unreasonably accommodated not to promptly assess him or to remain silent for a long time until compelled. However, the unreasonable request of defendant No. 4 could have been brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the plaintiff earlier to the notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. State of Orissa and its officers have become casual in dealing with notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code although Parliament has fixed a period of two months for action on their part. 7. Be that as it may under order XXXIX, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code where defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to him in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of preventing injury to the plaintiff in relation to such property as the court thinks fit until disposal of the suit. For that purpose, the plaintiff is to satisfy the court that (i) he has a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience is in his favour, and (iii) irreparable injury would be caused to him unless temporary injunction is granted. 8. Let me first consider in this case whether there would be irreparable injury to the plaintiff in case the demand amount of Rs. 1,20,488 as stated in the plaint would be realised from him. 8. Let me first consider in this case whether there would be irreparable injury to the plaintiff in case the demand amount of Rs. 1,20,488 as stated in the plaint would be realised from him. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff would suffer injury if any amount belonging to him is collected from him. However by orders of assessment under the Orissa Sales Tax Act the plaintiff has incurred liability when the amount is demanded from him. The Act makes adequate provisions to give relief to an aggrieved assessee to avoid recovery of the same. It is true that the plaintiff has alleged mala fides against defendant No. 4 who made the assessment. This could have been brought to the notice of the appellate or revisional authority who could have considered the same fairly since no allegation of mala fides is made against those authorities. Although, the plaintiff did not challenge the jurisdiction, trial court has doubted the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to assess and to demand tax on the ground that the power of delegation under section 17 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act has not been proved in the case. Assessment and demand under the Act are statutory official acts which should be presumed to be correct until proved to be wrong. There can be proof if there is allegation. When in the plaint and in the petition for injunction such a plea has not been taken by the plaintiff, the trial court ought not to have required the delegation to be proved in the case. A perusal of the Orissa Sales Tax Act would show that against the order of assessment, appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner. During pendency of the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner has power to stay realisation of the tax demanded. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner refusing to grant stay, revision lies to the Commissioner. Again, right of second appeal against the first appellate order is given under the Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has power to grant stay. There is no whisper in the plaint or in the petition for temporary injunction why such statutory remedies provided under the Act have not been followed. Again, right of second appeal against the first appellate order is given under the Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has power to grant stay. There is no whisper in the plaint or in the petition for temporary injunction why such statutory remedies provided under the Act have not been followed. There is no allegation in the plaint against the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Sales Tax Tribunal to give a cause to the plaintiff to avoid these authorities. In such circumstance, the Sales Tax Officer taking action for collection though hastily, after slumber for a long period, cannot be said to cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The injury to the plaintiff if any was invited by him by avoiding the statutory forums. Such an injury to the plaintiff caused on account of his own avoidance of remedies available under the statute cannot be said to be irreparable. 9. Plaintiff has challenged the orders of assessment on the ground that the commodities taxed are liable to tax at the first point in the series of sales and sale by the plaintiff not being at the first point would not be liable to tax. What would be the first point would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. In any case, the expression of any view with regard to the point, would prejudice trial of the suit itself. It will be sufficient to indicate that while considering such question, the trial court shall keep in mind sections 8, 9 and 12(5) of the Act. Whether the sale is in the first point can also be gone into by the appellate authorities under the Act. 10. Tax is essential for administration of the State. No court should ordinarily pass an order to stay realisation of the tax since administration of the State is likely to be affected by such stay. This would be more true where statutory remedies available are not availed of by the person alleging prejudice. From the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that the injury caused to the plaintiff has been invited by him on account of not following the remedies provided under the statute and cannot be said to be irreparable injury. 11. Assuming that the plaintiff is not required to follow the statutory remedies to prove that injury by realising Rs. From the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that the injury caused to the plaintiff has been invited by him on account of not following the remedies provided under the statute and cannot be said to be irreparable injury. 11. Assuming that the plaintiff is not required to follow the statutory remedies to prove that injury by realising Rs. 1,20,488 would cause irreparable injury to him he ought to have alleged facts and brought materials on record to draw an inference to the effect. Lakhs or crores would not by itself be a ground to cause irreparable injury. A man having hundred crores of rupees would not suffer any irreparable injury if one crore is taken away from him. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to have proved his financial position and the effect of realisation of Rs. 1,20,488 and how it would be affecting him injuriously which cannot be repaired. On vague assertions an inference of irreparable injury ought not to be drawn to get the statutory liability stayed. Therefore, on the materials on record, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has proved that he would suffer irreparable injury in case the demanded tax would be realised from him. 12. In case, tax is not realised, administration is likely to suffer. In case tax is realised from the person from whom it is demanded he alone would suffer. Balancing both the inconveniences I am inclined to hold that the convenience lies in realisation of tax than in staying it. 13. On account of failure of the plaintiff, on the point of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, I need not go into the question of prima facie case although the learned Standing Counsel for the commercial tax department appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that section 22 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is a bar to the suit. This will be taken into consideration at the time of trial. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order of injunction is set aside. Plaintiff-respondent shall pay the costs to the appellant. Hearing fee assessed at Rs. 500 (five hundred). Appeal allowed.