Honble YADAV, J. — The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief for quashing the order of assessment Anx. 26 dated 8.2.85 regarding calendar year 1976 and Anx. 27 dated 8.2.85 assessment order for calendar year 1977 passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward-B, Sri Bijeynagar (respondent No. 4) and also for quashing demand notices of these two years Anx. 28 and 29 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that he has also challenged Anx. 19 to the writ petition which is about creation of liability and imposition of penalty. (2). It is true that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the assessment orders Anx. 26 and 27 and also against the demand notices Anx. 28 and 29 to the writ petition alongwith Anx. 19 creating liability and imposition of penalty. (3) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the definition of sale given u/s. 2(o) alongwith the mandatory provisions contained u/s. 2(u) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short the Act of 1954). In support of his aforesaid argument he placed reliance on a decision reported in 1977 (2) SCC, 847 (1). He invited my attention towards paras 7, 28 and 29 of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Apex Court. (5). In para 7 of the aforesaid judgment their lordships has clearly ruled that the question whether a contract is one for sale of goods or for executing works or rendering services, is largely one of fact, depending upon the terms of the contract, including the nature of the obligations to be discharged thereunder and the surrounding circumstances. It is therefore necessary to examine the terms and conditions of the contract in question. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards Anx. 2 and 4 for proving the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, PWD/B&R, RCP, Works Division, Suratgarh. (7). In my humble opinion the disputed question of fact based on a construction of contract cannot be raised before this Court in writ jurisdiction. 2 and 4 for proving the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, PWD/B&R, RCP, Works Division, Suratgarh. (7). In my humble opinion the disputed question of fact based on a construction of contract cannot be raised before this Court in writ jurisdiction. As a matter of fact this disputed question of fact is required to be raised before the first appellate court,before the second appellate court as well as before this Court u/s. 15 of the Act of 1954 by way of filing revision. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition as according to him the orders impugned in the present writ petition are appealable u/s. 13 of the Act of 1954. Thus according to the learned counsel for the respondents the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Act of 1954. (9). According to learned counsel for the respondents against the order passed by the first appellate authority u/S. 14 of the Act of 1954, a second appeal is provided before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal and then thereafter if the petitioner was not satisfied from the order passed by the Assessing Authority by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal then a statutory remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioner. Instead of approaching the appropriate forum prescribed under the Act of 1954 the petitioner deliberately and wilfully approach this Court by way of filing present petition. (10). I am satisfied that the petitioner deliberately and wilfully instead of approaching the appropriate forum prescribed under the Act of 1954 preferred to file the instant writ petition. This short circuit device was deliberately and wilfully adopted by the petitioner as according to him it was difficult to obtain stay order before the competent authority under the Act of 1954. (11). Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that since the petition was pending from 1985, therefore, the preliminary objection about maintainability cannot be raised at this stage by the learned counsel for the respondents. (12). In my humble opinion this Court is meant for balancing the convenience of both the parties. (11). Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that since the petition was pending from 1985, therefore, the preliminary objection about maintainability cannot be raised at this stage by the learned counsel for the respondents. (12). In my humble opinion this Court is meant for balancing the convenience of both the parties. The writ petition was ex-parte admitted and the respondents have no opportunity to raise the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition at initial stage, therefore, if at the first appearance the respondents raise a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy u/Ss. 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1954; they cannot be debarred from raising objection specially once the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has deliberately and wilfully preferred the present writ petition instead of approaching the forum provided under the Act of 1954. (13). The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 (2). The facts of that case are not applicable to the present case because in my humble opinion when writ petition was filed by the petitioner in good faith and after exchange of counter rejoinder the case was at the stage of final hearing, therefore, at that belated stage their lordships ruled that in the interest of justice is would not be proper to through out the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Here in the present case in my considered opinion the petitioner has wilfully and deliberately has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as according to him it was very difficult to obtain stay order before competent authority under the Act of 1954. (14). As a matter of fact this Court is a Court of equity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the equitable jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised only in favour of a petitioner who is also prepared to do equity. If the petitioners conduct is found by this Court against equity and fair play he is not entitled to get relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (15). If the petitioners conduct is found by this Court against equity and fair play he is not entitled to get relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (15). It must be taken to be settled principle of law that alternative remedy is a self-imposed limitation upon this Court and if this Court is satisfied that in order to prevent injustice between the parties or in order to advance justice between the parties the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is expedient then the alternative remedy is no bar but if the Court is not satisfied about bonafide of the petitioner in filing the writ petition then in such a situation it would not be proper to exercise the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (16). It is true that wherever an order is impugned before this Court and it is found by this Court that the order passed by the authority is without jurisdiction or there is violation of principle of natural justice then irrespective of an alternative remedy this Court may entertain a writ petition. But in the present case nothing has been brought to my notice that the order impugned before me has been passed by an authority who has no jurisdiction or there is violation of principle of natural justice. Contrary to it, it is apparent on the face of record that the show cause notice was given to the petitioner before passing the assessment order and the petitioner has also given reply to the show cause notice and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard the impugned assessment orders Anx. 26 and 27 have been passed by the respondent No.4. (17). By no stretch of imagination the said order can said to be against the principle of natural justice and fair play. A show cause notice is filed and marked as Anx. 23 and the explanation given by the petitioner is also filed alongwith the writ petition as Anx. 24. (18). The aforesaid is the legal position in the present set of circumstances but in my opinion law must be tempered with mercy and fair play. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the decision reported in 1977 (2) SCC 847 (supra). 24. (18). The aforesaid is the legal position in the present set of circumstances but in my opinion law must be tempered with mercy and fair play. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the decision reported in 1977 (2) SCC 847 (supra). In para 7 of that decision, their lordships have clearly ruled that the question, whether a contract is one for sale of goods or for executing works or rendering services is largely one of the fact, depending upon the terms of the contract, including the nature of the obligation to be discharged thereunder and the surrounding circumstances. It is therefore necessary in the present case to examine the terms and conditions of the contract in question in order to advance justice between the parties. (19). In fact according to their lordships opinion answer to these questions turned on a construction of the terms and conditions of the contract. It would not be proper to cut out the sentence here or sub-clause and read the same in isolation as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Again what is required is not a fragmentary examination in parts of the contract Anx. 2 and 4 but an overall view and understanding of the whole contract which can be done only by Sales Tax Appellate Authority u/S. 13 of the Act of 1954 who are fully conversant with the ground realities. (19). The original contract are filed with the writ petition as Annx. 2 and 4. These two annexures which are contract entered into between the petitioner and the PWD is required to be scrutinised by the sales tax authorities. Here in my humble opinion the interpretation of the contract by the assessing authority is not sufficient. It requires further scrutiny by the first appellate court u/S. 13 of the Act of 1954. (20). Taking the aforesaid lenient view tempered with mercy the petitioner is hereby directed to file an appeal u/S. .13 of the Act of 1954 within a period of one month from today and if such appeal is filed, it will be deemed to have been filed within limitation and the petitioner will be allowed to raise all these questions which he is raising before this Court regarding construction of agreement Annx. 2 and 4 and after properly construing the contract Anx. 2 and 4 and after properly construing the contract Anx. 2 and 4 the authorities will pass an order in accordance with law. (21). Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that till the appeal filed u/s. 13 of the Act of 1954 is finally disposed of the ad-interim stay order passed by this Court on 22.5.85 be allowed to remain operative. (22). The aforesaid submission is strenuously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to him petitioner can legally move a stay application before the competent authority, therefore, it is not necessary to keep the stay order operative till the decision of the appeal filed by the petitioner. (23). In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in compliance of the stay order dated 2.5.85 passed by this Court, half of the assessed amount has already been deposited by petitioner and he has furnished solvent security about rest of the amount. Since the petitioner has made the compliance of the order dated 22.5.85, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to keep the ad-interim stay order dated 22.5.85 operative till the decision of the appeal filed by the petitioner. (24). For the reasons stated above the instant writ petition is finally disposed-of with a direction that the petitioner would file an appeal within one month from today u/S. 13 of the Act of 1954 and in case an appeal is filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Authority it would be treated to be within limitation and same will be expeditiously disposed of in accordance with law. Till appeal is finally disposed of, the ad-interim stay order passed by this Court on 22.5.85 shall remain operative.