Heard Shri TK Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri UB Sana, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents. 2. These three (3) writ petitions involve the common question of facts and law and, as such, this Court propose to dispose of these writ petitions by this common judgment. 3. In these writ petitiones the writ petitioner challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 12.7.1995 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala, Charge IV, Agartala, the 4th respondent herein under section 9 (4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 as amended upto date in respect of the assessment years 1984-85,1985-86, 1986-87 to in respect of the business of the writ petitioner as well as the order of 7.8.1995 passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura and the another order of 4.11.1995 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, which are marked as Annexure A, B and E to the writ petitions. 4. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: The writ petitioner is a Tea Estate owned and possessed by a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta in the name and style "M/s Peerless Tea and Industry Ltd"; According to the writ petitioner the Fatikcherra Tea Estate become a sick and a loosing concern from the beginning of the year 1980; thus the Government of Tripura decided to take over the management of the petitioner's Tea Garden and as such, an Ordinance of 13.11.1986 was promulgated by the Governor of the State. By virtue of the said Government policy and the order, Tripura Tea Development Corporation was appointed as custodian of the tea garden of the writ petitioner and on the same day i.e. 13.11.1986 a representative of the said Corporation took over the charge of the garden. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that Fatikcherra Tea Estate was grossly under mis-management prior to 1986 and factually there was no sale of any processed tea during the period as aforesaid and that the individual tea garden does not sell tea directly, particularly, processed tea, and the tea is sold through auction market, formerly in Calcutta and subsequently at Gauhati. The petitioner also averred that though the sale tax is assessable under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 as amended upto date where the actual sale of tea occurs within the State of Tripura there was no actual sale of tea of the tea estate of the writ petitioner in Tripura, therefore, the Tax authority has no jurisdiction to impose/levy any tax on the purported sale of tea of the tea estate. But the 4th respondent/i.e. the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge IV, Government of Tripura made assessment and passed a single assessment order on 12.7.1995 covering the period 4 QE 31.3.85 to 4 QE 31.3.93 assessing an amount of Rs. 1,09,375/- for the assessment year 1984-85, Rs. 1,09,3 75/- for the assessment year 1985-86, and Rs.68,359/- for the assessment year 1986-87 as against the writ petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the order of assessment of 12.7.1995 the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala, the 3rd respondent herein. The appellate authority by its order dated 7.8.1995 passed in Appeal Case No.l24/Ch-IV of 1995, Appeal Case No.l25/Ch-IV of 1995 and Appeal Case No.l26/Ch-IV of 1995 ordered that further payment of Rs.54,688/- for assessment year of 1984-85; Rs.54,688/-for assessment year 1985-86; and Rs.34,180/- for the assessment year 1986-87 of the assessed tax/penalty may be paid by 25.8.1995 as pre-requisite under section 20 (1) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and directed the writ petitioner to produce the receipted copy of challan as a token of part demand accordingly and the said appeals were fixed on 26.8.1995 at 11 AM for consideration of the admission of appeals before the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Tripura, the 3rd respondent herein. The writ petitioner further moved a revision petition against the order of 7.8.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes in the Court of the Commissioner of Taxes, the 2nd respondent herein, by contending, inter alia, that the appellate authority passed the order of 7.8.1995 exparte and without hearing the writ petitioner; and that the original assessment order was barred by limitation as the final order was passed on 12.7.1995 for the assessment years, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively. The learned Commissioner of Taxes held that under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, the appellate authority has no discretion to consider the appeal unless at least 50% of the tax assessed has been paid. The learned Commissioner of Taxes held that under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, the appellate authority has no discretion to consider the appeal unless at least 50% of the tax assessed has been paid. The learned Commissioner of Taxes also observed that section 9 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act does not provide any period of limitation for completion of assessment proceedings. The instant proceedings were completed under section 9 (4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and, as such, the proceedings for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, in otherwords the assessment years 1984 to 1993 were started on 17.12.1992 and were completed 6n 12.7.1995. The learned Commissioner of Taxes also found that the said proceedings were completed exparte under section 9 (4) of Tripura Sales Tax Act even though it had continued for 3 years; thus, the contention of the writ petitioner that the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation is not backed by legal provision. Being aggrieved by these orders passed by the Tax Department, the writ petitioner filed these three (3) writ petitions. 5. According to the respondents the sales tax is an 'indirect tax' which is in no way effect the interest of the seller including the writ petitioner herein inasmuch as the writ petitioner-dealer collects the sales tax from the buyers whom the buyers/consumers purchase tea which is a taxable goods. The respondents also averred that as the sales tax is levied on the commodity which is taxable, the dealer petitioner is not paying from his own profits as the buyers/purchasers of those commodities are paying the sales tax at the time of purchasing those goods/commodities like tea and in the instant case the petitioner has already collected the sales tax from the buyers/consumers of the commodities i.e. the tea, therefore, the petitioner has no right to withheld the sales tax payable to the respondents as per Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder. An appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner under section 20 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 against the said order of assessment of 12.7.1995 covering the period of the aforesaid assessment orders and the said appeals are still pending. In other words, the validity of the assessment order of 12.7.1995 in not yet examined or decided by the appellate authority. In other words, the validity of the assessment order of 12.7.1995 in not yet examined or decided by the appellate authority. The revision petition so far made by the writ petitioner before the Commissioner of Taxes from the order of 7.8.1995 passed by the appellate authority was also dismissed. However, the Commissioner of Taxes extended time fixed for payment of pre-requisite amount to 30th November, 1995 and directed the appellate authority to consider and admit the appeal if the pre-requisites amount are deposited by 30th November. 1995, 6. Shn TK Dey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the impugned orders particularly the assessment order of 12.7.1995 is an illegal order inasmuch as the same was passed without relying upon any relevant documents and without evidence on record. According to Shri Dey, even though the relevant documents were produced by the writ petitioner except those documents which have been in the custody of Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd before the Assessing Authority, the 4th respondent failed to examine those important documents and made an illegal assessment order. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit in-opposition the respondents stated that the petitioner failed to produce the books of accounts for die year 1984-85 to 1991-92 and complete books of accounts for the year 1992-93 before the 4th respondent, therefore, the respondent No.4 took up all the cases together under section 9 (4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 depending on the information available in the petitioners file maintained in the office of the 4th respondent, Superintendent of Taxes and the documents and, the account books so far produced by the writ petitioner. 7. In support of his argument, Shri TK Dey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon three decisions of this Court; (1) in a case between Shri Altafur Rahman vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1986) 1 GLR 14; in another case between Shri Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala & others, reported in (1989) 2 GLR 461 (1991 (1) GLJ 52) and also in a case between Monoranjan Chakraborty vs. State of Tripnra reported in (1990) 1 GLR equivalent to 1981 Sales Tax Cases 291 (1990 (1) GLJ 287). 8. 8. In the first case, Shri Altafur Rahman (supra) this Court held that on the facts and circumstances of the case the remedy provided by way of appeal was not an alternative, efficacious remedy and thus the writ petition was maintainable. 9. In the second case, Shri Dwijendra Bhattacharjee (supra) this Court observed that the Assessing Officers are bound to observe principles of natural justice in reaching his conclusions. 10. In the third case, Monoranjan Chakraborty (supra) this Court held that the question of a particular commodity taxable or not may be decided by Court in the writ petition; and further held that the first and the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. In the said case, namely, Monoranjan Chakraborty (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held thus : "Very wide powers have been granted without any check or control on the exercise thereof. There is a great chance of its being abused. If abused, it can cause havoc to the dealer concerned. Apparently the whole procedure of tax and imposition of penalty without an effective right of appeal, in the instant case, is most oppressive and uncontrolled. The consequences are devastating on the dealers. It is clearly confiscatory in character and effect. Absence of appeal, in the instant case, in our opinion has made the procedure of levy of tax and imposition of penalty highly oppressive and arbitrary. Such law, therefore, has to be held to be harsh, unjust and violative of Article 14. We, therefore, hold that the first and second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and strike down the same." 11. In reply to the said argument advanced by Shri TK Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri UB Saha, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents submits that the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Monoranjan Chakraborty (supra) has been stayed by the Apex Court vide order dated 18.9.1990 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 1029/-325 of 1990. 12. 1029/-325 of 1990. 12. The decisions of this Court so far relied upon by Shri TK Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered in a case Shri Dwinjendra Bhattacharjee (supra) relates to the principle of law that "the Assessing Officer cannot make an assessment on speculation or on fanciful ground." Best judgment "does not negate the exercise of judgment on the part of the officer. The Assessing Officer who makes the best judgment assessment, has to make an intelligible, well grounded estimate rather than launch on pure surmise." 13. On the other hand in support of his arguments Shri UB Saha, learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in a case between Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. HM Esufali HM Abdulali reported in XXXII Sales Tax Cases 77 wherein the Apex Court held thus : "Prima facie, the assessing authority is the best judge of the situation. It is his 'best judgment' and not of any one else. The High Court could not substitute its 'best judgment' for that of the assessing authority. In the case of 'best judgment' assessments, the Courts will have to first see whether the accounts maintained by the assessee were rightly rejected as unreliable." In the said case viz Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. HM Esufali HM Abdulali (supra), reference was made by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, partly at the instance of the assessee and partly at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, four questions of law were referred to the High Court for its decision. They are : "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the revised assessment enhancing the taxable turnover under the State law by Rs.2,50,000 and the taxable turnover under the Central Law by Rs. 1,00,00 on the basis of the undisputed escape in the amount of Rs.31,171.28 by depositing the said amount of escape turnover as the measure for determining the quantum of enhancement for the whole year was illegal, unjustified or excessive ? (2) Whether a best judgment assessment could at all be made under section 19(1) of the Act or whether revision of the assessment should be confined to the quantum of proved or admitted escaped turnover ? (2) Whether a best judgment assessment could at all be made under section 19(1) of the Act or whether revision of the assessment should be confined to the quantum of proved or admitted escaped turnover ? (3) If the answer to the previous question is that the revision in the assessment should be confined only to the quantum of proved or admitted escaped turnover, was the penalty of Rs.2,000 imposed on the footing of the revision of the assessment for the whole year legal and justified ? and (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of a penalty under section 19 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, b read with section 9 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act was not legal ? The first three questions were referred to the High Court at the instance of the assessee and the last one was referred at the instance of the Commissioner. The High Court answered the 1st and 3rd questions in favour of the assessee and the second and the fourth questions in favour of the department. 14. At this stage, it shall be relevant to point out that the connected appeals from the assessment order of 12.7.1995 are not yet decided by the appellate authority i.e. the 3rd respondent till today. I am of the view that the writ petitioner should exhaust the appellate forum and if the petitioner succeeds in the appeals, the petitioner shall get all the benefits. 15. According to Shri UB Saha, learned counsel for the respondents the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 as well as the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 is still valid and the same has statutory force of law in view of the stay order passed by the Apex Court as discussed above. I am in full agreement with this contention of Shri UB Saha. I am in full agreement with this contention of Shri UB Saha. Another contention has been made by Shri UB Saha, learned counsel for the respondents that relying upon a Madras High Court decision in a case between State of Tamil Nadu vs. EP Nawab Marakkadai, reported in 100 Sales Tax Cases 1 in which the Madras High Court upheld the statutory provisions of law under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 by which particularly the second proviso to section 31 of the Act places an embargo on the appeal being entertained unless it is accompained by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant; if there is no payment of the admitted tax within the period allowed for filing the appeal or within the extended period as specified in the Act for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, no appeal can be said to have been filed. In otherwords, the prerequisite deposits are required before admitting an appeal under the said Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Shri Saha contended. 16. It is well settled that the High Court cannot direct any authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise its discretion in a particular way. However, the High Court has its extensive jurisdiction under this Article. It is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decisions impugned. The boundaries of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 are clearly and strongly built and cannot be breached without risking jurisprudential confusion. These principles of law finds its place in G. Veerappa Filial vs. Ramanand Raman Ltd reported in AIR 1952 SC 192 and in a case between M. Naina Mohammed vs. KA Natarajan & others reported in AIR 1975 SC 1867 . 17. These principles of law finds its place in G. Veerappa Filial vs. Ramanand Raman Ltd reported in AIR 1952 SC 192 and in a case between M. Naina Mohammed vs. KA Natarajan & others reported in AIR 1975 SC 1867 . 17. As the power is supervisory and not an appellate in nature and the contention of Shri Dey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the assessment order was passed without relying upon any relevant documents so far as produced by the writ petitioner; and the assessment order is without any evidence; or the assessment order is barred by limitation under section 8 (2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, etc cannot be examined by this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage inasmuch as there is an appropriate forum for adjudicating the matter in appeal, and the connected appeals in this case are pending. 18. In my considered view, the writ petitioner approached this Court in order to avoid the deposit of pre-requisite statutory requirements, namely, the pre-requisite money as ordered by the appellate Court. I am also of the view that the assessing authority made the assessment order within its power and jurisdiction. It is not the case that the assessment order was made by the authority concerned without jurisdiction. If the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction then in that case this Court has jurisdiction to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. But in the instant case it is not the case. It is also an admitted position that the writ petitioner already filed 3 appeals, namely, Appeal Case No.l24/Ch-IVof 1995, Appeal Case No. 125/Ch-IV of 1995 and Appeal Case No.l26/Ch-IV of 1995 before the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala against the assessment order of 12.7.1995 and the matters are still pending before the 3rd respondent. 19. In my considered view, the 3rd respondent the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, committed no irregularity or incorrectness while passing the impugned order dated 7.8.1995. On perusal of the available materials on record, I am constrained to recall the maxim "He who seeks equity, he must come with clean hands ". But in the instant case, I am of the view that the writ petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands. On perusal of the available materials on record, I am constrained to recall the maxim "He who seeks equity, he must come with clean hands ". But in the instant case, I am of the view that the writ petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands. For the reasons and discussion made above, no case has been made out by the writ petitioner to justify the interference of the impugned orders passed by the respondents concerned. 20. In the result, these three (3) writ petitions have no merit and the same stand dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents within a period of one month from today. 21. Before I part with this case, I am constrained to make the following observation in the existing facts and circumstances of this case : It is made clear that this judgment and order shall not stand on the way of the appellate authority i.e. the 3rd respondent (the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura) in deciding the said appeal viz (1) Appeal Case No. 124/Ch-IV of 1995, (2) Appeal Case No. 125/Ch-IV of 1995 and (3) Appeal Case No. 126/Ch-IV of 1995 on its merit.