JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. The present appeal assails order dated 28.07.2014 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5445/2014. The Learned Single Judge declined interference with the order dated 02.07.2014 of the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Rajasthan Tax Board. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he is the Power of Attorney holder of truck bearing No. RJ-05-GA-7271, Chassis No. MB1KADYCXAAKC0435 & Engine No. KAH658807. The truck was stolen while in his possession leading to registration of FIR No. 65 dated 18.04.2013. The truck was apprehended on 19.06.2013 while transporting illicit liquor with a forged number plate bearing registration No. HR-45-A-7034. FIR No. 202 dated 19.06.2013 was registered against one Sattu Ram. In view of the recovery of the truck Final Report was submitted in that FIR lodged by the Appellant. It is submitted that in the subsequent FIR the name of the Appellant or the owner of the truck does not figure and there is no material with regard to them during the investigation also. 3. The Excise Commissioner without considering the same properly has arrived at a conclusion based on conjunctures and surmises that the Appellant had not taken adequate precautions that his truck was not utilized for illicit activities and therefore he was responsible for the same. If the truck had been stolen and was in possession of the another there was no opportunity or occasion for the Appellant to exercise any precaution in that regard. The order therefore is not sustainable on the face of it. 4. It is next submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the alternative remedy of appeal is very onerous as 75% of the amount has to be deposited and the Appellant never made any offer before the Excise Commissioner to deposit the penalty amount. 5. There is no absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition despite alternative or statutory remedy and the discretion can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution in a fit case. 6. Conversely, Counsel for the State submitted that the order-sheet itself reflects that the Appellant failed to deposit the penalty amount under Section 69(4) third proviso of the Act after himself having offered to do so. 6. Conversely, Counsel for the State submitted that the order-sheet itself reflects that the Appellant failed to deposit the penalty amount under Section 69(4) third proviso of the Act after himself having offered to do so. He cannot be permitted to take one stand before the Excise Commissioner and then turn around and challenge the order made on that basis before this Court. 7. It was lastly submitted that if there is a statutory alternative remedy, the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised. Merely because a statutory provision for appeal requires pre-deposit does not make it onerous. 8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 9. The question whether despite availability of alternative remedy, a writ petition can be entertained or not if a plea is raised that in the facts of the case it does not amount to efficacious and effective alternative remedy and was onerous in nature need not be decided in the facts of the present case and is left open for consideration as the present appeal can well be disposed on another ground. 10. A litigant cannot be permitted to take one stand before a statutory authority and after an order is passed on basis of the same, assail the order on that very ground. 11. Recitals in an order-sheet are sacrosanct with regard to what may or may not have transpired before the authority insofar as a superior court or appellate forum is concerned. The proper remedy, if aggrieved, is to file an application first before the very same authority who knows best what may have or may not have transpired before it and the reasons for any recitals contained in the order-sheet. There is also no pleading in the writ petition or the memo of appeal that no concession was ever made by the Appellant for deposit of penalty under Section 69(4) of the Act. 12. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge at this stage. But, if the Appellant files an application before the Excise Commissioner that he had never made any offer for deposit of the penalty amount and the recitals in the order-sheet were erroneous, it is for the Excise Commissioner to consider matters in his own wisdom and to his satisfaction in accordance with law. But, if the Appellant files an application before the Excise Commissioner that he had never made any offer for deposit of the penalty amount and the recitals in the order-sheet were erroneous, it is for the Excise Commissioner to consider matters in his own wisdom and to his satisfaction in accordance with law. This part of the order cannot be construed as any opinion or observation by the Court on the correctness of the submissions by the Appellant that he had made no such offer, and the matter remains in the realm or discretion of the Excise Commissioner himself. The appeal is dismissed.