JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order dated 18.10.1979 (Annexure A) passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer Special Circle II Jaipur (the Assessing Authority). The brief facts are as under:- During the accounting period 23.3.1972 to 10.4.1972 corresponding to the assessment year 1972-73 the petitioner purchased wheat from the Food Corporation of India after paying necessary sales tax and without availing of the concession under section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954 (the Act). The said wheat was converted into fine flour (Atta) and the Atta so converted was sold by the petitioner for Rs. 18,49,665.15 in the inter-state trade during the above said assessment year. During the assessment proceedings the petitioner claimed that since he had paid the sales tax under the Act on the wheat out of which the Atta had been made no central sales tax was payable in view of notification No. F. 5(25)FDCT/72 dated 26.4.1972 (the notification) issued under sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. Vide the impugned assessment order dated 18.10.1979 (Annexure A) the Assessing Authority held that the petitioner could claim exemption from payment of central sales tax under the notification only if he had purchased the Atta in question by paying sales tax under the Act and that since he had paid the sales tax on the wheat he was not exempted from paying the central sales tax as notification did not apply to him and consequently held that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 1,84,966.51 P. by way of central sales tax. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above said order of the Assessing Authority and also moved an application for stay of recovery of the amount in question. The stay application was heard by the Addl. Commissioner Commercial Taxes Rajasthan Jaipur the respondent No. 3 who vide order dated 11.1.1980 (Annexure C) rejected the application for staying the recovery observing that no prima facie case had been made out for grant of stay. The stay application was heard by the Addl. Commissioner Commercial Taxes Rajasthan Jaipur the respondent No. 3 who vide order dated 11.1.1980 (Annexure C) rejected the application for staying the recovery observing that no prima facie case had been made out for grant of stay. Even thereafter the petitioner did not pay the above said amount of tax and as such in exercise of the powers under section 11 A of the Act the Assessing Authority vide letter dated 13.2.1980 (Annexure B) directed the bankers of the petitioner at Jaipur to deposit the above said amount along with other amounts due to the Revenue from the petitioner (which are not subject-matter of this writ petition) in the treasury out of the amount lying deposited in the account of the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court on 22.2.1980 challenging the assessment order (Annexure A) on the ground that Atta was another form of wheat and that in view of the notification the petitioner is not liable to pay the central sales tax and that the stay application had been wrongly rejected by the respondent No. 3 and that the Assessing Authority had issued Annexure B with a view to harras him. He has thus prayed that the assessment order Annexure A be quashed. The writ petition has been opposed on merits as well as on the ground that the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the Act having been availed by him he cannot invoke the extraordinary powers of this Court by filing writ petition. 2. Dealing with the preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition it may be noted that if an assessee is dissatisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority he can file an appeal under section 13 of the Act before the Appellate Authority and if he is dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal he can prefer a further appeal under section 14 of the Act to the Tribunal and under section 15 of the Act a revision can be filed in the High Court against the order of the Tribunal on a question of law. The Act thus provides a complete machinery to challenge the order of assessment and as such the impugned order could be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act. The Act thus provides a complete machinery to challenge the order of assessment and as such the impugned order could be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives special remedy for enforcing it the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. If any authority is needed for this purpose reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Titagur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another vs. State of Orissa and another ( AIR 1983 SC 603 ) . The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case (2) Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and others (AIR 1985 SC 313) may be quoted with advantage:- "Art. 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 requires it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass 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." 3. In the present case the petitioner filed an appeal against an assessment order Annexure A and after his application for stay of the recovery of the amount in question had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority and recovery proceedings were started by the Assessing Authority he filed this writ petition in this Court along with an application for stay of the recovery. The said application was partly allowed on 28.2.1980 when this Court stayed the proceedings for realisation of the amount from the petitioner on his furnishing a security in the sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- within two weeks from that date. The said application was partly allowed on 28.2.1980 when this Court stayed the proceedings for realisation of the amount from the petitioner on his furnishing a security in the sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- within two weeks from that date. Thereafter he did not prosecute his appeal before the Appellate Authority. The facts therefore show that the petitioner has tried to short-circuit and circumvent the statutory procedure under the Act and has approached this Court without exhausting the remedy available under the Act. In view of the above quoted decisions of the Supreme Court he cannot be allowed to do so. The preliminary objection there fore has to be upheld. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with costs.Petition dismissed with costs. *******