Summarize the following court judgment. Special Leave Petition Nos. 4513 14 of 1983. From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th March	 1983 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 590 of 1983. WITH Writ Petition Nos. 3363 64 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution) S.R. Banerjee and Vinoo Bhagat for the Petitioners in S.L.P. Vinoo Bhagat for the Petitioner in Writ Petition. F.S. Nariman	 V.S. Desai	 and R.K. Mehta: for the Respondent in S.L.P. S	K. Mehta	 for the Respondent in Writ Petition. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN	 J. These two special leave petitions are directed against an order of the Orissa High Court dated March 18	 1983 dismissing the Writ Petitions flied by the petitioners in limine challenging the two orders of assessment passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack II Circle	 Cuttack dated February 16	 1983. The connected petitions under Act. 32 of the Constitution are by an Officer of the Company challenging the two orders of assessment. By one of the Writ Petitions	 the petitioners challenged the validity of the order of assessment under the for the assessment year 1980 81 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack II Circle	 Cuttack dated February 16	 1983 under r.15 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules	 1957 treating the gross turnover of Rs. 7	 13	 94	 903. 63p. as returned by the 746 petitioners to be their taxable turnover and the tax payable thereon at 10% at Rs. 71	39	490.36p. By the other	 the petitioners challenged the validity of an order of assessment under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 1947 for the assessment year 1980 81 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack II Circle	 Cuttack dated February 16	 1983 under sub section (4) of s.12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 treating the gross turnover of Rs. 2	02	07	852.65p. as returned by the petitioners to be their taxable turnover and the tax payable thereon at 7% at Rs. 14	14	549.71p. It appears from the impugned orders of assessment that proceedings under r.12 (5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules	 1957 ("Rules" for short) and under sub section (4) of s.12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 ("Act" for short) were initiated against the petitioners for the assessment year 1980 81 in relation to assessment of tax on sales in the course of inter state trade and commerce under the and inside sales effected during the year in question under the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947. The provisions contained in r. 12 (5) of the Rules and in sub section (4) of s.12 of the Act enjoin the affording of reasonable opportunity to the dealer for completion of assessment. The learned Sales Tax Officer observes that he gave repeated opportunities to the petitioners to get themselves ready for the assessment of tax and to produce their account books and other documents but they sought adjournments on one pretext or another. Eventually on February 16	1983 the learned Sales Tax Officer refused to grant any further adjournment holding that the petitioners had sufficient opportunity and accordingly proceeded to best judgment under r.15 of the Rules and sub section (4) of s.12 of the Act. In the absence of any material	 the learned Sales Tax Officer made an assessment under r.15 of the Rules treating the gross turnover of sales in the course of inter State trade and commerce amounting to Rs. 7	13	94	903.63p. as returned by the petitioners under the to be their taxable turnover and the tax payable thereon at 10% at Rs. 71	39	490.36p. After allowing an adjustment of Rs. 27	88	388.47p. paid by the petitioners along with the quarterly return	 the learned Sales Tax Officer has raised a demand for payment of a sum of Rs. 43	51	101.89p. He disallowed their claim for deduction of Rs. 6	74	99	085.65p. representing sales to registered dealers and departments of Government as well as of Rs. 28	24	224.42p. claimed as deduction on account of tax collected from purchasers as the requisite declarations in Form 'C ' were not forthcoming. He also disallowed the concessional rate of tax at 4%. Similarly	 while 747 making an assessment under sub section (4) of s.12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947	 he treated the gross turnover of inside sales amounting to Rs. 2	02	07	852.65p. as returned by the petitioners to be their taxable turnover and the tax payable thereon at 7% at Rs. 14	14	549. 71p. After allowing an adjustment of Rs. 1	08	480.11p. paid by the petitioners along with the quarterly return	 the learned Sales Tax Officer has raised a demand for payment of a sum of Rs. 13	06	069.60p. It would thus appear that by the impugned orders of assessment the petitioners are faced with a total demand of Rs. 56	57	171.49p. for the assessment year 1980 81. The petitioners instead of preferring appeals under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act filed petitions before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the two orders of assessment. The only contention raised before the High Court was that the impugned orders of assessment being a nullity	 the petitioners were entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution	 but the High Court was not satisfied that this was a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The High Court while dismissing the writ petitions observed: "Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the records	 we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order (s) in exercise with our extra ordinary jurisdiction since there is a right of appeal against the same. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impunged order being a nullity is entitled to invoke our extra ordinary jurisdiction. We are not satisfied that this is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. There is no violation of principles of natural justice." In support of these petitions	 the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners rest purely on procedural irregularities or touch upon the merits of the assessments. Broadly speaking	 the contentions were that: (1) The learned Sales Tax Officer had no authority or jurisdiction while making an assessment under r. 15 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules	 1957 to treat the gross turnover as returned by the petitioners to be their taxable turnover. (2) He was not justified in disallowing the claim for deduction of Rs. 6	74	99	085.65p. representing sales to registered dealers and departments of Government as well as of Rs. 28	24	224.42p. on account of tax collected from the purchasers from the gross 748 turnover of sales in the course of inter State trade and commerce amounting to Rs. 7	13	94	903.63p. (3) He wrongly denied the petitioners the benefit of the concessional rate of tax at 4% merely because they failed to furnish the requisite declarations in Form 'C ' (4) He could not	 for similar reasons	 while making an assessment under sub section (4) of section 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 treat the gross turnover of inside sales amounting to Rs. 2	02	07	852.65p. as returned by the petitioners to be their taxable turnover nor was he justified in disallowing their claim for deduction of Rs. 1	 80	 65	 167.66p. representing sales to registered dealers merely because they failed to produce the prescribed declarations from registered dealers. (5) And the learned Sales Tax officer had acted in flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice as the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to place their case for the assessment year in question. We are afraid	 these contentions cannot prevail. It is not for us to say whether or not the learned Sales Tax Officer was justified in proceeding to best judgment under r. 15 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules	 1957 and under sub section (4) of section 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 or whether he was justified in treating the gross turnover as returned by the petitioners to be their taxable turnover or whether he was wrong in disallowing the deductions claimed for the assessment year in question. In the very nature of things	 these are the questions which the petitioners should raise in appeals preferred before the prescribed Appellate Authority under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act. We are constrained to dismiss these petitions on the short ground that the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the prescribed authority under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act	 then a second appeal to the Tribunal under sub section (3) (a) thereof	 and thereafter in the event the petitioners get no relief	 to have the case stated to the High Court under section 23 of the Act. In Raleigh Investment Company Limited vs Governor General in Council	(1) Lord Uthwatt	 J. in delivering the judgment of the Board observed that in the provenance of tax where the Act provided for a complete machinery which enabled an assessee to effectively to raise in the courts the question of the validity of an assessment denied an alternative jurisdiction to the High Court to interfere. It is true that the decision of the Privy Council in Raleigh Investment Company 's case	 supra	 was in relation to a suit brought for a declaration that an assessment made by the Income Tax Officer was 749 a nullity	 and it was held by the Privy Council that an assessment made under the machinery provided by the Act	 even if based on a provision subsequently held to be ultra vires	 was not a nullity like an order of a court lacking jurisdiction and that section 67 of the Income Tax Act	 1922 operated as a bar to the maintainability of such a suit. In dealing with the question whether section 67 operated as a bar to a suit to set aside or modify an assessment made under a provision of the Act which is ultra vires	 the Privy Council observed: "In construing the section it is pertinent	 in their Lordships opinion to ascertain whether the Act contains machinery which enables an assessee effectively to raise in the courts the question whether a particular provision of the Income Tax Act bearing on the assessment made is or is not ultra vires. The presence of such machinery	 though by no means conclusive	 marches with a construction of the section which denies an alternative jurisdiction to inquire into the same subject matter. " We are not oblivious of the fact that this Court in K.S. Venkataraman & Co. vs State of Madras	(1) in a five Judge Bench by a majority of 3: 2 has dissented with the view expressed by the Privy Council in Raleigh Investment Company 's case	 supra	 and held that an assessment made on the basis of a provision which is ultra vires is not an assessment made under the Act. It was observed that the entire reasoning of the Judicial Committee was based upon the assumption that the question of ultra vires can be canvassed and finally decided through the machinery provided under the Income Tax Act. The majority observed that the hierarchy of authorities set up under the Act being creatures of statute were not concerned as to whether the provisions of the Act were intra vires or not. If an assessee raises such a question	 according to the decision of the majority in Venkataraman 's case	 supra	 the Appellate Tribunal can only reject it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such objection or render any decision on it. As no such question can be raised or can even arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal	 the High Court cannot possibly give any decision on the question of ultra vires because its jurisdiction under section 66 is a special advisory jurisdiction and its scope is strictly limited. It can only decide questions of law that arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and that are referred to it. Further	 an appeal to this 750 Court under section 66A (2) does not enlarge the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court as this Court can only do what the High Court can under section 66. It would therefore appear that the majority decision in Venkataramon 's case	 supra	 rests on the principle that (i) An ultra vires provision cannot be regarded as a part of the Act at all	 and an assessment under such a provision is not "made under the Act" but is wholly without the jurisdiction and is not directed by section 67 of the Act. And (ii) The question whether a provision is ultra vires or not cannot be decided by any of the authorities created by the Act and therefore cannot be the subject matter of a reference to the High Court or a subsequent appeal to this Court. No such question arises in a case like the present where the impugned orders of assessment are not challenged on the ground that they are based on a provision which is ultra vires. We are dealing with a case in which the entrustment of power to assess is not in dispute	 and the authority within the limits of his power is a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. The challenge is only to the regularity of the proceeding before the learned Sales Tax Officer as also his authority to treat the gross turnover returned by the petitioners to be the taxable turnover. Investment of authority to tax involves authority to tax transactions which in exercise of his authority the Taxing Officer regards as taxable	 and not merely authority to tax only those transactions which are	 on a true view of the facts and the law	 taxable. Emphasis is laid on the following observations made by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh(1): "If an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior court 's sense of fair play the superior Court may	 we think	 quite properly exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the Court or tribunal of first instance	 even if an appeal to another inferior Court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it	 it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned. " We find no justification for extending the principles laid down in Mohammad Nooh 's case	 supra	 to a case like the present where 751 there is an assessment made by the learned Sales Tax Officer under the Act. In Raleigh Investment Company 's case	 supra	 the Privy Council rightly observed that the phrase "made under the Act" described the provenance of the assessment; it does not relate to its accuracy in point of law. The use of the machinery provided by the Act	 not the result of that use	 is the test. The decision in Mohamamd Nooh 's case	 (supra) is clearly distinguishable as in that case there was total lack of jurisdiction. There is no suggestion that the learned Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an assessment. Nor can it be contended that he had acted in breach of rules of natural justice. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner was served with a notice of the proceedings under r. 12(5) of the Rules and sub section (4) of section 12 of the Act. The impugned orders clearly show that the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to place their case. Merely because the learned Sales Tax Officer refused to grant any further adjournment and decided to proceed to best judgment	 it cannot be said that he acted in violation of the rules of natural justice. The question whether another adjournment should have been granted or not was within the discretion of the learned Sales Tax Officer and is a matter which can properly be raised only in an appeal under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act. All that this Court laid down in Mohammad Nooh 's case	 supra	 is that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law; in other words	 it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court. Under the scheme of the Act	 there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal	 they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub section (3) of section 23 of the Act	 and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it	 the remedy provided by that statute only must 752 be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes	 J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. vs Hawkesford(1) in the following passage: "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. . . . . . But there is a third class	 viz.	 where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. . . the remedy provided by the statute must be followed	 and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. " The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville vs London Express Newspaper Ltd.(2) and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago vs Gordon Grant & Co.(3) and Secretary of State vs Mask & Co.(4) It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights	 and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. Furthermore	 the Act provides for an adequate safeguard against an arbitrary or unjust assessment. The petitioners have a right to prefer an appeal under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act subject to their payment of the admitted amount of tax as enjoined by the proviso thereto. As regards the disputed amount of tax	 the petitioners have the remedy of applying for stay of recovery to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under cl. (a) of the second proviso to sub section (1) of section 13 of the Act which runs: "Provided further that (a) When the dealer or person	 as the case may be	 has presented an appeal under sub section (1) of section 23	 the Commissioner may	 on an application in that behalf filed by such dealer or person within thirty days from the date of 753 receipt by him of the notice under sub section (4)	 in his discretion	 stay the recovery of the amount in respect of which such notice has been issued or any portion thereof	 for such period and subject to such conditions as the Commissioner thinks fit;" The petitioners are at liberty to make an application for stay of the disputed amount and the Commissioner will decide whether or not there should be such stay on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit	 looking to the nature of the demand raised in the facts and circumstances of the present case. For these reasons	 the petitions must fail and are dismissed. We hope and trust that the Appellate Authority will dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. Shri Nariman	 appearing on behalf of the State of Orissa fairly stated that he has no objection to the appeal being heard as early as possible without any objection as to limitation. Petitions dismissed.

It appears that proceedings under r. 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules 1957 and under sub section (4) of section 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947 were initiated against the petitioners for the assessment year 1980 81 in relation to assessment of tax on sales in the course of inter state trade and commerce under the and inside sales effected during the year in question under the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947. Despite repeated opportunities to get themselves ready for the assessment of tax and to produce their account books and other documents	 they sought adjournments on the one pretext or another. Eventually the Assistant Sales Tax Officer	 Cuttack II circle	 Cuttack before whom the assessment proceedings were pending	 refused to grant any further adjournment and proceeded to best judgment assessment and treated the gross turnover of Rs. 7	13	94	903.63 p. as returned by the petitioners for purposes of the to be their taxable turnover. Similarly	 he treated the gross turnover of Rs. 2	02	07	852.65 p returned by the petitioners as representing inside sales vis a vis the State of Orissa to be their taxable turnover. After allowing adjustment of Rs. 27	88	388.47 p paid by the petitioners	 the learned Sales Tax Officer raised a demand for the payment of a sum of Rs. 43	57	101.89 p towards tax on sales in the course of inter State trade and commerce payable under the and after allowing adjustment of Rs. 1	08	480.11 p paid by the petitioners	 he raised the demand for payment of a sum of Rs. 13	06	 069.60 p as tax payable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 1947. Thus the petitioners were faced with a total demand of Rs. 56	57	171.49 p for the assessment year 1980 81. The petitioners instead of preferring appeals under sub s (1) of section 23 of the Act filed petitions before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the two orders of assessment. The High Court was not satisfied that this was a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction or any violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly held that they were not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution	 Dismissing the Petitions	 ^ HELD: In the provenance	 of tax where the Act provides for a complete machinery which enables an assessee to effectively raise in the courts the question of the validity of an assessment denied an alternative jurisdiction 744 to the High Court to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. The phrase "made under the Act" describes the provenance of the assessment; it does not relate to its accuracy in point of law. The use of the machinery provided by the Act	 not the result of that use	 is the test. [748 G H; 749 A] Under the scheme of the Act	 there is hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful act complained of. They have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act. If they are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal	 they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub section (3) of section 23 of the Act	 and then ask for a case to be stated on a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment	 and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. [751 F H] Raleigh Investment Company Limited vs Governor General in Council	 74 IA 50	 followed. K.S. Venkataraman & Co. vs State of Madras ; and State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh ; ; distinguished. The question whether a provision is ultra vires or not cannot obviously be decided by any of the authorities created by the Act and therefore cannot be the subject matter of a reference to the High Court or a subsequent appeal to this Court. No such question arises in a case like the present where the impugned orders of assessment are not challenged on the ground that they are based on a provision which is ultra vires. This is a case in which the entrustment of power to assess is not in dispute and the authority within the limits of his power is a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. The challenge is only to the regularity of the proceedings before the learned Sales Tax Officer as also his authority to treat the gross turnover returned by the petitioners to be the taxable turnover. Investment of authority to tax involves authority to take transactions which in exercise of his authority the taxing officer regards as taxable and not merely authority to tax only those transactions which are	 on a true view of the facts and the law	 taxable. There is no justification for extending the principles laid down in Raleigh Investment Company 's case or Mohammad Nooh 's case to a case like the present where there is an assessment made by the learned Sales Tax Officer under the Act. [749 E H; 753 A B] The question whether another adjournment should have been granted or not was within the discretion of the learned Sales Tax Officer and is a matter which can properly be raised in an appeal under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act.[751 D] The rule laid down in Mohammad Nooh 's case which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion	 rather than a rule of law. [751 E] 745 The Act provides for an adequate safeguard against an arbitrary or unjust assessment. The petitioner have a right to prefer an appeal under sub section (1) of section 23 of the Act subject to their payment of an admitted amount of tax as enjoined by the proviso thereto. As regards the disputed amount of tax	 they have the remedy of applying for stay of recovery to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under cl. (a) of the second proviso to sub section (1) of section 13 of the Act. It is for the Commissioner to decide whether or not there should be such stay on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit	 looking to the nature of the demand raised in the facts and circumstances of the present case. [752 E F; 753B C]