JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. Defects pointed out by the Registry are waived. 2. Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned standing counsel appearing for Commercial Taxes Department has been notified in advance and he has filed reply to writ petitions. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Breweries Private Limited assailing order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short 'the Tax Board') whereby the Tax Board in stay applications filed by the petitioner along with appeals under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003(for short 'the Act') against assessment order as well as order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the First Appellate Authority in appeals under Section 82 of the Act filed by the petitioner, has declined to pass any interim order against recovery of tax and interest. At the outset, it may be noted that the assessing authority apart from levying tax and interest had also proposed to recover double of the amount of tax as penalty under Section 61 of the Act. First Appellate Authority allowed the appeals filed by the petitioner under Section 82 of the Act to the extent of penalty, but maintained order of assessment in so far as levy of amount of tax and interest is concerned. It is to this extent that the challenge was made by the petitioner to the order of assessing authority as well as First Appellate Authority before the Tax Board by filing appeals under Section 83 of the Act. 6. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, (2010) 2 SCC 723 ; State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. M/s. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug & Others, (Civil Appeal No. 6714 of 2009 decided on 27.11.2014 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Special Circle 'A', Jodhpur Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, (2010) 2 SCC 723 ; State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. M/s. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug & Others, (Civil Appeal No. 6714 of 2009 decided on 27.11.2014 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Special Circle 'A', Jodhpur Vs. Prithvi Singh, (2014) 38 Tax Update 269 argued that in the present case assessment orders that were originally passed were correctly framed inasmuch as subsequent assessment orders are based on mere change of opinion and not on new or fresh developments of facts. The assessing authority as also the First Appellate Authority have fallen into error of reading supposed intention of the Legislature in Entry No. 107 of Schedule V of the Act which apparently recorded fruit pulp drinks with levy of tax @ 14.5% whereas the previous entry in Schedule IV of the Act which was prevalent up to 29.07.2014 and subsequent entry which was available from 30.07.2014, there was no separate prescription of fruit pulp drinks. Residuary entry that was available in Schedule V under Entry No. 16(vi) was in force only for a period of fortnight. It cannot be, therefore, made basis for reassessment. 7. Learned Senior Counsel cited order dated 31.05.2016 passed by this Court in M/s. KEC International Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6896 of 2016) wherein in similar circumstances reassessment was framed on the basis of change of opinion. This Court taking note of the fact that as against demand of Rs. 7 crores, a sum of Rs. 3.36 crores had been deposited, restrained the respondent-department from making further recovery and directed release of attached account of the petitioner-company therein. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the present case as against total demand of Rs. 23.59 crores, a sum of Rs. 5.79 crores has already been deposited by the petitioner voluntarily and therefore, to the extent of remaining amount, interim protection be granted to the petitioner as the Tax Board is yet to hear and decide the appeals filed by the petitioner. The Tax Board has erred in law in refusing to grant such interim protection only because it held that such protection has already been granted to the petitioner during pendency of first appeal and that balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner. The Tax Board has erred in law in refusing to grant such interim protection only because it held that such protection has already been granted to the petitioner during pendency of first appeal and that balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that interest of Revenue is already protected as the bank guarantee of the entire amount has been provided by the petitioner. 8. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax & Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 argued that the Supreme Court after considering its various previous judgments held that even after passing assessment order, fresh assessment order reopening the case can be passed based on the change of opinion and writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the assessee. The Writ Court ought not to entertain the writ petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148, the reassessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon. It is submitted that when appeals are already pending before the Tax Board, this Court ought not to enter into the merits of the case, as it may prejudice case of either party. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also material on record, this Court is indeed not inclined to enter into the merits of the case, so as to examine correctness of the assessment order as also order passed by First Appellate Authority. However, in so far as total demand of tax and interest is concerned, this Court finds that as against total demand of Rs. 23.59 crores, amount of Rs. 5.79 crores has already been paid/recovered and in order to balance the counter interests as also keeping in view interest of Revenue, it is directed that there shall be stay on recovery of 50% of the demanded sum subject to its being secured by bank guarantee, provided the petitioner deposits remaining 50% amount after adjustment of Rs. 5.79 crores already deposited with the revenue. 5.79 crores already deposited with the revenue. At the same time, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Tax Board to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before it. It goes without saying that deposition of the said amount shall be subject to final outcome of the appeals pending before the Tax Board. It is also clarified that any observations made by this Court in the present order or by the Tax Board in the impugned order would be construed to have been made only for the purpose of passing the order of interim stay and shall not in any manner govern the discretion of the Tax Board for deciding the appeals filed by the petitioner and the Tax Board would be free to act in its discretion being uninfluenced by any such observations. 10. With the aforesaid directions, writ petitions are disposed off. 11. Stay applications are also disposed off. 12. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of each writ petitions.