JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing aluminium chloride and other products. It is registered under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as also under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. The petitioner obtained registration from Sales Tax Department (annexure P-1) and from the Industries Department (annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner applied for grant of eligibility certificate in form III under the exemption scheme available to a new industrial undertaking. The petitioner, thus, obtained the eligibility certificate (annexure P-3) operative for a period of five years commencing on April 9, 1988. This certificate contains at item No. 3, the quantum of product. It is contended that the entry of the quantum of product is contrary to prescribed form of exemption scheme as also the law and is thus, without the authority of law. This position was explained vide annexure P-4. The petitioner also wrote to respondent No. 2 vide annexure P-5 to amend the eligibility certificate so as to make it conform to law. The essence of the grievance as contained in this petition is that the petitioner is entitled to complete exemption and not to the quantum as wrongly entered in the eligibility certificate. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition seeking a direction against the respondent No. 1 that it had no authority to impose or recover sales/entry tax under the State/Central Act on the sales of goods exempted for the period from April 9, 1988 to April 8, 1993. Further direction is sought against the respondent No. 2 for amendment of the eligibility certificate by deletion of the entry in regard to the quantity. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent No. 1 (Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Ujjain) passed the assessment order on February 23, 1994 (annexure P-6) imposing the liability of the tax in conformity with certificate of eligibility. The petitioner, therefore, questioned the validity of annexure P-6 as well. 2. The respondent have filed the return and submitted that the petition is devoid of substances and that the exemption cannot be claimed for the products not covered by the eligibility certificate. 3. The petitioner, therefore, questioned the validity of annexure P-6 as well. 2. The respondent have filed the return and submitted that the petition is devoid of substances and that the exemption cannot be claimed for the products not covered by the eligibility certificate. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eligibility certificate (annexure P-3), to the extent of quantification of the products in column 3 was without the authority of law and was required to be amended so as to permit the petitioner to enjoy the benefit under the eligibility scheme. The petitioner, has, therefore, claimed the aforesaid direction as well as consequential quashment of annexure P-6. Alternatively, the counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority and District Industries Centre (DIC) for correction of the eligibility certificate. 4. The Government Advocate submits that in view of the alternative remedy as noted above, this petition was not maintainable. The other opposition is that the appropriate authority was within its power to restrict the certificate by quantification of the limit of the product. Shri Surjeet Singh, however, submits that the correction in the certificate is a matter to be routed through DLC (District Level Committee). He has, however, no objection if liberty to have recourse to an alternative remedy is granted. 5. In AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi), it is laid down that resort to articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not proper if satisfactory solution is available on the terms of the statute itself. 6. As I am only inclined to grant the liberty, I find it wholly unnecessary to examine the merits of the matter. 7. I, therefore, dispose of this petition by refusing the reliefs as claimed, but by granting liberty to the petitioner to have recourse to appropriate remedy against the order of assessment as also against the eligibility certificate. The petitioner may, thus, approach the appropriate authority by May 16, 1994 and may elect to obtain interim orders from the authority. The authority is left free to consider the prayer and pass orders on its own discretion, without feeling fettered by the order passed in this petition. 8. In the interest of justice, as prayed and as not objected to, the interim order of stay passed by this Court is made operative till May 16, 1994. The authority is left free to consider the prayer and pass orders on its own discretion, without feeling fettered by the order passed in this petition. 8. In the interest of justice, as prayed and as not objected to, the interim order of stay passed by this Court is made operative till May 16, 1994. 9. This petition thus, stands finally disposed of with liberty as above, but without any order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.