JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the gazette notification No. 183 dated 21.05.1997 (Annexure-6) issued under purported exercise of powers under Section 12(1) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 whereby and where under the schedule appended to the notification dated 26.12.1977 has been amended to impose 25% sales tax on various articles including the country liquor and the concession on sales tax for purchase of rectified spirit has been withdrawn and Petitioner prayed to restrain the Respondents from not realising the sales tax in pursuance of the gazette notification referred above upon the sale of country liquor and the Petitioner also challenged the proviso of Section 12(1) and Section 13(1) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 being ultra virus of the Constitution of India as well as Bihar Finance Act, 1981 itself. 3. The writ petition was filed on 19.06.1997 and was admitted on 07.05.1999 and interim order was passed that "till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the Petitioners for realization of the sales tax". However, it was made clear by the same order that authorities are not precluded from deciding the appeal of the Petitioners, if any, pending before them. 4. It is clear from the prayer made in the writ petition itself that only declarations have been sought without challenging any of the 2. orders passed by the Respondents and, therefore, the present writ petition is only for declaration without any consequential relief. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are not pressing its relief for declaration as mentioned above but submitting that the said notification has no application to the Petitioners' case as Petitioners were awarded contract vide order dated 03.06.1995 and in term of that contract the subsequently issued notification cannot affect the rights of the Petitioners which accrued to the Petitioners under the terms and conditions which are validly incorporated in the contract between the parties under the statutory provision under the Acts governing the award of the contract of country liquor and rectified spirit. 6. It is also submitted that the term of the contract was from 01.07.1995 to 31.03.1999 and, therefore, the notification could not have been retrospectively applied, therefore, also the said notification has no application to the Petitioners' case. 7. 6. It is also submitted that the term of the contract was from 01.07.1995 to 31.03.1999 and, therefore, the notification could not have been retrospectively applied, therefore, also the said notification has no application to the Petitioners' case. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew our attention to another order dated 10.02.1999 issued by the then State of Bihar who was the relevant State at the relevant time before formation of the State of Jharkhand. By this notification it has been provided that sales tax @ 25% shall be applicable from 21.05.1997 and this notification was issued on 10.02.1999 and by that time term of the Petitioners' contract was about to expire within a period of one month or so and, therefore, the Petitioners had already sold the commodity on the tax which was applicable to the Petitioners before issuance of the order dated 10.02.1999. 8. In view of the above, the making of the tax applicable retrospectively is also illegal. However, the writ petition has not been amended to incorporate their relief. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also drew our attention to the order dated 31.12.1998 submitted along with the supplementary affidavit along with the demand notice issued in pursuance of the said order imposing the penalty upon the Petitioners in view of the above order. This order is also not impugned in this writ petition as well it could have been challenged in regular appeal and learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the said order was challenged in appeal and the appeal and thereafter revision also has been dismissed. 10. As we have already pointed out that the Petitioners in the writ petition did not challenge any order including the order dated 10.02.1999 as well as 31.12.1998 and has submitted these documents along with the supplementary affidavit. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that not only order of penalty has been passed against the Petitioners but even order to prosecute the Petitioners have also been passed, which is not the subject matter before this Court. However, according to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the order to prosecute has been separately challenged. 12. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that not only order of penalty has been passed against the Petitioners but even order to prosecute the Petitioners have also been passed, which is not the subject matter before this Court. However, according to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the order to prosecute has been separately challenged. 12. We are of the considered opinion that in a matter of imposition of sales tax and where the Act provided for assessment of the tax after hearing the Assessee and remedy to further appeal/revision are available, then the Assessee is required to approach the assessing authority first and put his case before the assessing authority itself then if any order goes against him then to prefer the appeal under the Act and further prefer appeal or the revision so that the matter can be sorted out and if the Petitioner's case is found valid and legal then relief can be granted under the Act itself by the authorities. 13. If there is a legal issue then also those issues can be raised before the same authority without presuming that the authorities will not lend their ear to the legal submission submitted by the Assessee. This is the normal procedure. We are conscious of that fact that such alternate remedy/remedies are not the absolute bar against the entertaining of the writ petition by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also conscious of the fact that once the writ petition is admitted for hearing and is kept pending for hearing for a very long period, then also it may not be proper to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of availability of alternate remedy like of appeal etc. But facts of this case are very peculiar in as much as the Petitioners in the writ petition have not challenged any order passed by any authority in its original petition and sought declaration, therefore, at the time of filing of writ petition there was no cause of action to the Petitioners to seek mere declaration in a case where the Petitioners could have sought the consequential relief because of any action taken or likely to be taken. 14. 14. The Civil Law as such may not apply strictly in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but well settled principles of law and guidelines guides the Court in dealing with the matter like where the Petitioner is seeking only declaratory relief and is not seeking consequential relief which he could have sought then as per Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, the lis only for declaration, in the facts and circumstances, is not maintainable. This is based on law that one can maintain lis when he is affected by action or omission of other which gives a cause of action to aggrieved to seek relief against other through process of law. The said principles applies to the present case because of the reason that even after passing of the interim order in favour of the Petitioners to the effect only that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioners for realisation of the sales tax, this Court vide same interim order dated 07.05.1999 permitted the authorities to proceed with the appeal of the Petitioners and it appears from the order dated 31.12.1998, copy of which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the authorities proceeded to pass order under Section 20(1) Act of 1981 and according to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, against this order an appeal was preferred which was dismissed and a revision was also preferred which was also dismissed. However, copy of those orders have not been placed on record by the Respondents but he is ready with the copies of those orders, which we are taking on record. 15. Be that at it may, the fact remains is that in the present case two parallel proceedings were going on and in one actual and effective relief was sought by the Petitioners in the appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction and orders have been passed in those proceedings then those orders should have been challenged and may have been challenged by the Petitioners. 16. 16. Then in this situation, in the present writ petition, it has been contended that the notifications have no application to the case of the Petitioners because it was issued after entering into the contract by the Petitioners with the Respondents and consequently the order was passed vide notification dated 10.02.1999 as retrospective then those issues could have been examined by the authorities concerned and there was no necessity for seeking declaration, declaring the notification dated 21.05.1997 illegal. 17. However, as we have already noticed that the notification dated 10.02.1999 has not been challenged by the Petitioners even after it was issued on 10.02.1999 i.e., even in almost 13 years. 18. In the facts and circumstances, when the Petitioners have already availed the alternate remedy and obtained the orders under the Act and here in this case only relief of declaration is sought, we do not find any reason to grant such relief to the Petitioners and to entertain the objection of the Petitioners as raised in the petition for mere declaration. In view of the above reasons, the petition is dismissed. 19. Since the writ petition of the Petitioners have been dismissed on the ground referred above without entering into the merit of the validity of the notification dated 21.05.1997 and order dated 10.02.1999 or any order which has been passed against the Petitioners, therefore, the Petitioners' matter, if any, is pending involving the same issue shall not be affected by dismissal order of this writ petition. Petition dismissed.