JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated September 20, 1990 (Anx5) passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-I, Zone-I, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur and order date October 10, 1990 (Anx.7) passed by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur and stay the recovery proceedings of the tax. 2. It is submitted by Mr. V.K. Singhal, learned counsel, that petitioners purchased Plastic Granules, which were their raw material. An order was placed with M/s H.M. Bags Manufacturer, New Delhi, who is registered dealer under the Delhi Sales Tax Law for supply of 200 bags of plastic granules of about 5,000 Kg. Full payment amounting to 2,05,400 was remitted. A similar order was also placed by M/s Venkteshwar Synthetic Private Ltd., Sudershanpura Industrial Area, Jaipur, which had also sent the money. The supplier dispatched the goods of both the buyers by the same truck. Separate GRs. were prepared in respect of each consignment. It is further submitted that at Check-Post Shahjahanpur, the bill and GRs. of the petitioner-company were duly submitted and entry was made in respect thereof. It is also submitted that a factory by name Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd. is well known in the area and the factory of petitioner No. 1 is in front of the same. While the driver, after reaching the Industrial area, was making enquiry about the petitioner-company from the man of Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd., the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, reached the site and got one paper signed from the driver of petitioner No.1, in which incorrect facts were mentioned. The goods were seized, for which, seizure memo (Anx.1) has been filed. In this seizure memo, it is mentioned that goods of petitioner-company and that of M/s Venkteshwar Synthetic Ltd. were not sup- ported by bill or challan and the said goods are to be un-loaded an the premises of the Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd. He was informed that the bill and GRs. were shown at check-post, Shahjahanpur and have been inadvertently left there. The petitioner submitted representation in writing on September 14,1990 (Anx.2). Thereafter, a notice dated September 17, 1990 (Anx.3) in the name of the driver, was issued, fixing the date of hearing October 4, 1990. The petitioner submitted reply (Anx.4) to the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on the same day, which was supported by an affidavit of the driver. The petitioner submitted representation in writing on September 14,1990 (Anx.2). Thereafter, a notice dated September 17, 1990 (Anx.3) in the name of the driver, was issued, fixing the date of hearing October 4, 1990. The petitioner submitted reply (Anx.4) to the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on the same day, which was supported by an affidavit of the driver. On September 20, 1990, instead of releasing the goods or finding any fault in the affidavit of the driver, a penalty was levied. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, has fixed quotas of revenue-of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers, Flying Squad, every month and in order to fulfil their quotas, they have to recover the same by way of penalties. Thus, the principles of natural justice and the provisions of law have been completely ignored. A penalty of 1,23,220 was levied by respondent No.3 vide order dated September 20,1990 (Anx.5). This order was passed in respect of the petitioner company and M/s. Venkteshwar Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. jointly, with deliberate intention to create problems for the petitioners in filing appeals etc. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner No.] has submitted an appeal against the said order and also filed a petition (Anx.6) for stay of the recovery proceedings before respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Respondent No.2, after hearing the petition, rejected the same vide order dated October 10, 1990 (Anx.7). It is pointed out that he was led away by the alleged statement of the driver, which was not given by him and for which, an affidavit was also submitted to point out the real facts. This application was rejected on the ground that there was discrepancy in the documents presented by the driver and that the vehicle was found in the premises of a different company. A copy of the bill and GR of the petitioner company has been filed and marked Anx.8. Thereafter, the petitioner-company moved an application for instalment before the respondent No.2, but the same was also rejected vide order dated October 30, 1990 (Anx.9), on the ground that power to grant the installments of a sum below 1,00,000 is vested with the Deputy Commissioner (Administration). Thereafter, the petitioner-company moved an application for instalment before the respondent No.2, but the same was also rejected vide order dated October 30, 1990 (Anx.9), on the ground that power to grant the installments of a sum below 1,00,000 is vested with the Deputy Commissioner (Administration). It is contended by the learned counsel that fixation of the targets for realisation of the penalty is not in accordance with law and causes unnecessary hardship to the assesses. It is also submitted that after amendment of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for brevity the Act, 1954'), the petitioner-Company has no remedy, but to approach this Court. It is pointed out that the goods were not even unloaded and therefore, it could not be presumed that the petitioner-company has made a sale to any other person. It is contended that the vehicle was standing outside the premises of Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd. and not inside, as held by respondent No.2. It is also contended that the action of respondent No.3 is illegal ab-initio, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has no other efficacious remedy, except to approach this Court. 4. Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that as the petitioner has already availed of the remedy available under the statutory provisions of the Act, 1954 by way of filing appeal and stay application and also application for installments, he is not entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has also made submissions in detail on the factual side as also on the allegations made by the petitioner-company and pointed out that the truck was found inside the premises of the Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this matter, it will be necessary to decide the preliminary objection before any other ground raised is considered. It is evident from the facts briefly mentioned above, that as provided under the provisions of the Act, 1954 the petitioner-company has already filed appeal, which is pending and stay-application as well as the application for making installments have been rejected. There is no doubt that if the application for stay or application for making installments was accepted, the petitioners would not have filed this writ petition. There is no doubt that if the application for stay or application for making installments was accepted, the petitioners would not have filed this writ petition. Thus, the main purpose of filing this writ petition seems to be is to obtain stay regarding the recovery of the penalty imposed on the petitioners. Even though, alternate remedy is no bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy that has been provided under the Statute. This is a matter, which concerns revenue and remedies are available in the Statute itself. In Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, AIR 1985 SC 313 , it was observed by the Apex Court that when the Statute. itself provides remedies, passing ad-interim orders in respect of revenue matters under Article 226 of the Constitution should be discarded. In K.S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-Tax Investigation Commission, Etc, (1954) SCR 738 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that remedy provided in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary one and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief else- where. The same view was taken by this Court in Ashok Kumar Jain v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'C', Kota 2A . In Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1967 Cal . 382, a Full Bench held that mere existence of alternative remedy may not bar above reliefs where questions of initial lack of jurisdiction or of violation of rules of natural justice are involved. But, in cases where, in addition to the existence of another remedy, the party also actively pursues such remedy have to be distinguished and in such cases relief under Article 226 must be refused. The parties have actively persuaded the remedy provided under the Statute and have approached this Court only when they were not able to get the desired stay order. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be allowed to pursue the two parallel remedies. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Brilliant Traders Ltd. v. Board of Revenue and another, AIR 1962 Ker. The parties have actively persuaded the remedy provided under the Statute and have approached this Court only when they were not able to get the desired stay order. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be allowed to pursue the two parallel remedies. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Brilliant Traders Ltd. v. Board of Revenue and another, AIR 1962 Ker. 132 , Where it was observed that where petitioner has preferred a revision against an order of Sales Tax Authority and has also filed a writ petition against the same order in the High Court, the revision by itself does not debar the High Court from giving appropriate relief, if otherwise the petitioner is entitled to such relief. Evidently, the facts of this matter are different as explained above, since the petitioners have filed appeal and failed to get stay order. A reference was also made to K.S. Shivji and Col. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Division, AUR 1967 Mad. 134 , in which, it was held that when a remedy is available to an assessee under the Statute, he must first resort to it and when actually he has resorted to it and the appeal is pending, the Court acting under Article 226 would be reluctant to interfere with an order of assessment. But there may be cases where this rule may not outweigh other considerations which may compel interference by the Court. This matter is not, in any way, helpful to the petitioners as I do not find any compelling considerations, which may call for interference, inspite of the facts mentioned above. 6. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has force and succeeds. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily, with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******