Honble SINGH, J. — This writ petition, in substance, is a stay application, praying for the stay of the recovery of Rs.l4,46,630/-,which is to be recovered as sales tax dues. The petitioner No. 1-M/s. Podar Spinning Mills, was assessed as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the different assessment years as follows: — YEAR OF DATE OF OR- RST. CST. ASSESSMENT. DER OF ASSESSMENT. (RS). (RS). YEARS OF ASSESSMENT DATE OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT RST. (RS.) CST (RS.) 77-78 07.02.83 — 41673.00 81-82 25.10.89 538315.00 — 81-82 24.07.92 30359.00 — 84-85 30.03.91 251467.00 139479.00 85-86 02.06.92 — 71995.00 85-86 29.08.92 371802.00 — 86-87 02.03.90 1540.00 — TOTAL 1193483.00 253147.00 GRAND TOTAL : RS : 14,46,630.00 (2). Except against the assessment order, for the year, 1977-78 ,and 1986-87, the petitioners have filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals III, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur. All the appleas are pending. (3). In the meantime, stay application under the proviso of sub- section (3) of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was filed, praying that till the disposal of the appeals, the recovery of the assessed amounts may remain stayed. The ground for stay was that the petitioners were facing severe financial stringency and it was not within their reach to pay the disputed amount. The stay application was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. (4). Attachment order passed on August 22,1989 and in pursuance of the same, proclamation for sale in Form No.STR-4 has been issued by the Office of the Commercial Taxes Officer for sale of Haveli Podar Park, jaipur, including the land and building. The attachment order and the proclamation for sale are under-challenge. (5). Mr. Kuhad, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that M/s.Podar Mills Limited is a parent Public Limited Company, registered under the provisions of the Company Act,1956, having its registered office at Bombay. The assessee - the Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, is one of its unit and the other units are Podar Mills and Podar Processors at Bombay. The parent company owns a separate establishment, i.e., Podar Park, Jaipur. Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, and Podar Park, Jaipur are two different units with separate, distinct and independent establishments. (6). M/s.Podar Spinning Mills runs its own independent textile business at Jaipur and is independently assessed for tax purposes. The parent company owns a separate establishment, i.e., Podar Park, Jaipur. Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, and Podar Park, Jaipur are two different units with separate, distinct and independent establishments. (6). M/s.Podar Spinning Mills runs its own independent textile business at Jaipur and is independently assessed for tax purposes. Various excise and sales tax licences and registration also exist in the name of M/s.Podar Spinning Mills (Proprietor Podar Mills Limited). The Podar Spinning Mills is an assessee under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1954 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is lying closed since August 2,1985. (7). According to Mr. Kuhad, whatever tax is to recovered, the recovery can be made against the assets of the assessee. M/s. Podar. Spinning Mills alone and not from other assets belonging to its proprietor - Podar Mills Limited. (8). In respect of the textile undertakings of the. Podar Mills Limited at Bombay and the petitioner - Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, proceedings have been initiated under the Textile Under-takings (take-over of management) Act, 1983. The companies Bankers - the State Bank of India has filed a civil suit for recovery of its dues in the High Court of Bombay in 1986. The Court appointed a receiver in respect of Podar Mills Ltd., including its other units. Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, was also included therein. The property of the petitioners has gone in the possession of the receiver. No sale can proceed, unless a fresh order is obtained from the Bombay High Court. The receiver is holding the property on behalf of the Court. The property in possession of the receiver can neither be attached, nor sold. Moreover, in view of the pendency of proceedings under the Textile Under-takings (take-over of management) Act, 1983, the recovery proceedings against the establishment cannot be initiated. (9). The petitioners, in all good faith, want to pay the revenue to the Government, but, on account of the order of the Bombay High Court, the assets belonging to the petitioners cannot be sold. So instead of proceeding for attachment and sale of the Podar Park, which does not belong to Podar Spinning Mills the assessee, the Sales Tax Department should have made an application before the Bombay High Court for passing an order for sale of Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur. So instead of proceeding for attachment and sale of the Podar Park, which does not belong to Podar Spinning Mills the assessee, the Sales Tax Department should have made an application before the Bombay High Court for passing an order for sale of Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur. Having not done so, their action in proceeding against Podar Park, Jaipur, is not in accordance with the law. I find no merit in these submissions. (10). The recovery proceedings were initiated in 1983 and the petitioners filed the present writ petition and got the interim order in that very year. If there was really any honest intention on their part then steps could have been taken for permission from the Bombay High Court for modification of the stay order to the effect that the assets of the petitioner No.l may be permitted to be sold to satisfy the demand of the Tax Department. Having not done so, it becomes difficult for the Court to accept the contention of the learned counsel regarding their bonafides. (11). Admittedly, Podar Mills Limited is a public Limited Company at Bombay. It is parent Company having its two Units at Jaipur - (i) Podar Spinning Mills, and (ii) Podar Park, Jaipur, and at Bombay it has its other Units i.e. Podar Processors and Podar Mills. Since the Bombay High Court has appointed a receiver with regard to all the Units of Podar Mills Limited except Podar Park, Jaipur, the recovery of Sales Tax dues as land revenue is being made by attaching and selling Podar Park, Jaipur. The Rajasthan Government cannot proceed against Podar Spinning Mills, unless the Bombay High Courts order is vacated or modified. (12), Shri Kuhads main contention was that Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, was the assessee and not the Podar Park. The recovery can be made only against the assets of Podar Spinning Mills and not against Podar Park. If there was any difficulty in the way of Government in recovering the amount, an application should have been filed before the Bombay High Court for modification of the order to the extent of selling Podar Mills, Jaipur. Having not done so, the entire proceedings are vitiated. (13). In support of his contention, Mr. Kuhad stated that the property belonging to Podar Mills Limited is in the hands of Receiver and it has become beyond the reach of the assessee. Having not done so, the entire proceedings are vitiated. (13). In support of his contention, Mr. Kuhad stated that the property belonging to Podar Mills Limited is in the hands of Receiver and it has become beyond the reach of the assessee. In supportof his contention, he has referred to the case reported in Everest Coal Co. V. State of Bihar (1), where in it has been held that the Receiver holds the property merely as an officer or agent of the Court. Any interference with Courts possession may amount to contempt. In my opinion it is hardly relevant for the present case inasmuch as nothing has been done by the Rajasthan Government which may come within the ambit of the contempt. The order of Bombay High Court does not cover Podar Park, Jaipur, so the Rajasthan Government is free to proceed for recovery of the sales tax dues to the tune Rs. 14,42,630/-. The recovery is pending since 1983. (14). The Court, while considering the matters, where the public revenue is involved, should be extremely cautious in granting the stay. The Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India ltd. (2), has gone to the extent by saying that even the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, interim orders are not to be granted, unless the balance of convenience was clearly in his favour for making interim order. It was further observed that the provision of Article 226 was not to be invoked for circumventing the statutory provisions. The Court has to keep in mind the far-reaching consequences in preventing the collection of public revenue on technicalities or inconvenience. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. C.L. Batra (3). (15). In the instant case, undisputedly, the tax liability has already been worked out and it has become payable by the petitioners. Their appeals are pending before the Dy. Commissioner of Appeals III, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur. Their stay application has been rejected. (16). This writ petition is nothing but a stay application in the appeal pending before the Dy.Commissioner, Sales Tax. (17). The petitioner has failed to establish his prima facie case for grant of any stay nor the balance of convenience is lies in his favour. Commissioner of Appeals III, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur. Their stay application has been rejected. (16). This writ petition is nothing but a stay application in the appeal pending before the Dy.Commissioner, Sales Tax. (17). The petitioner has failed to establish his prima facie case for grant of any stay nor the balance of convenience is lies in his favour. If he wants Jo save the property - Podar Park, Jaipur, from sale, he may deposit the amount and after the discharge of the order by the Bombay High Court, if he wants he can sale the Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur, as stated in the writ petition. (18). I do not find any good ground for granting any relief and staying the recovery of the revenue payable to the Government. (19). The writ petition devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.