ORDER N. K. JAIN, J. - This order shall also dispose of W.P. Nos. 1082 of 1996, 1089 of 1996 and 1090 of 1996 as the common question of law is involved in all these petitions. 2. By this petition filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ for quashing order (annexure P4) passed by respondent No. 1. 3. The petitioner is a registered firm and carries on business of "supari and pan masala", etc., at Indore. It is registered as a dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). It was assessed for the years 1982-83 to 1986-87. However, the respondent No. 1 issued notice (annexure P1) under section 19(1) of the Act to the petitioner stating that there are reasons to believe that certain transactions liable to tax during the aforesaid period have escaped assessment rendering the petitioner liable to be reassessed as also liable to penalty. This notice was challenged by the petitioner in M.P. No. 1208 of 1990 [Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 165 (MP)] on the fulcrum of want of jurisdiction. The petition was resisted by the respondents who asserted that the specified authority has investigated the matter, collected details and discovered transaction and amounts indicative of the concealment of purchase and sales in Madhya Pradesh and it was, therefore, a case of escaped assessment. The petition was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated May 5, 1994 [Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 165 (MP)] (annexure P2) with the directions extracted as under : "(a) The petitioner is granted three week's time from the date of this order to file reply to the notice (annexure A) before the taxing authority and is permitted to raise the question of jurisdiction as well, before it as is contended here. (b) The taxing authority is directed to consider the question of jurisdiction, if raised, depending on satisfaction about existence or non-existence of facts like (i) sales and/or purchase of goods in M.P. by the petitioner, (ii) escapement of assessment, and (iii) omission attributable to the dealer and decide the same, after hearing the petitioner, as first point, deferring till then the question of reassessment, by a reasoned order. (c) The taxing authority shall have freedom to proceed further to reassess, fix tax and penalty in terms of section 19(1) of the Act, if answer recorded on the question of jurisdiction, is in affirmative." 4. After the said order (annexure P2), the petitioner submitted its objections on the question of jurisdiction before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has thereupon passed the order (annexure P4) dated March 27, 1996 holding that there is material available to show that there has been sale and purchase of goods in Madhya Pradesh by the petitioner which has escaped assessment and as such the respondent had jurisdiction to proceed with the proposed reassessment in terms of section 19(1) of the Act. It is this order (annexure P4) of respondent No. 1 which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. It is averred by the petition that the material relied upon by the respondent No. 1 does not disclose or establish any sale/purchase within the territory of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent No. 1, therefore, did not acquire any jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceedings under section 19(1) of the Act. As against it, the respondents have filed return reiterating that the department has investigated the matter, collected details and discovered transactions and amounts indicative of the concealment of purchases and sales in Madhya Pradesh and of consequent evasion of tax by the petitioners. It is thus asserted that a case of escaped assessment is made out necessitating action under section 19(1) of the Act. 6. I have heard counsel for both the sides and I am satisfied that the petition is premature and deserves dismissal. 7. The order dated May 5, 1994 (Milan Supari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 165) (annexure P2) of this Court is very clear and it say "the taxing authority shall have freedom to proceed further to reassess, fix tax and penalty in terms of section 19(1) of the Act, if answer recorded on the question of jurisdiction, is in affirmative". Respondent No. 1, the taxing authority after hearing the petitioner having decided the question of jurisdiction in affirmative is, therefore, now free to proceed with the reassessment in terms of section 19(1). Respondent No. 1, the taxing authority after hearing the petitioner having decided the question of jurisdiction in affirmative is, therefore, now free to proceed with the reassessment in terms of section 19(1). Proceedings initiated under the said provision have to run full course and any interference at this stage is wholly unwarranted and would be rather in violation of the order, annexure P2. 8. There can be no quarrel with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to invoke jurisdiction under section 19(1), two things must be satisfied; one : that there has been some sale or purchase of goods within the State of M.P. any time during 5 years preceding the assessment; and two : that such transaction has either been under-assessed or escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate. In the instant case, however, the respondent No. 1 on the basis of material made available to him was satisfied that there existed grounds for proceeding under section 19(1). That being so, this Court cannot enter into the merits of the material and come to its own conclusions. Section 19(1) itself contemplates hearing of the dealer and enquiry by the taxing authority before any such assessment can be made or penalty imposed. The petitioner would surely be free at such hearing and enquiry to demonstrate that there has been no such sale or purchase. If the petitioner still suffers any assessment or penalty it can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under section 38 of the Act. Second appeal also lies to the Tribunal against the orders passed in first appeal. The petitioner can also ask the Tribunal to state the case upon a question of law and refer the same to this Court under section 44 of the Act. The Act thus provides for a complete code for challenging an order of assessment and the petitioner-assessee can get adequate redressal against the wrongful act complained of. Under the circumstances, as held by the apex Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315; AIR 1983 SC 603 "where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute only must be availed of". Under the circumstances, as held by the apex Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315; AIR 1983 SC 603 "where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute only must be availed of". In the case of Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 330 the apex Court observed : "Article 226 is not meant to shortcircuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. The Supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice needs to be strongly discouraged." 9. The petition in hand also seems to have been filed only with a view circumvent statutory procedure and avoid assessment. This petition must, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed with cost Rs. 500 to be adjusted from the amount of security. The remaining amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.