HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.(Tl No. 1433 of 2010 Simptex Infrastructures Limted (Formeriy known as Simptex Concrete Piies (India) Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having tts registered ofRce at 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700017, in the State of West Benga! and an ofnce at C-12, Netaji Complex (2nd Fioor), Mandir Chowk, Jharabhata, Bilaspur - 495001, District: Biiaspur, in the State of Chhattisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy Generai Manager and Power of Attomey. 1/ereus 1 State of ChhatUsgarh through the Secretary, Department of Commercia! Taxes, D.K.S. Manfraiaya Bhavan, Rafpur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commereial Tax, Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, Civil Unes, Raipar (C.G.) 3. Additionai Commissioner of Commerciaf Tax, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Assistant Commissioner of Commarcial Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONPF INDIA /teoearance: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additionai Advocate RESPONDENTS Generai for th8 Stete/respondents on advance copy. -^ ORALORDER (05.04.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner- Simplex Infrastructures Limited has flled this peUtion chatienging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/17) passed by the Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Admittedly, this order has been passed in exereise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 49 ofthe Chhattisgarh Vatue Added •Tax, Act, 2005. Sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the said Act reads as foltovre:- y^ lia; W.P.fDNo. 1433 of2010 "(3) The Commissioner may on his own motfon or on information received calt for and examme the record of any proceeding under this Act if he considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under Section 3 to assist him including any officer to whom he has deleigated his pcwers under sub-section (1) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the intorest ofthe revenue, and hemay, after giving the dealer or pereon a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass within one calendar year from the date of initiaCon of proceedings such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an ordter enhancing or modifying the assessment of canceiing ths assessment and directing a fresh assessment: Provided that - (a) no proceeding shall be initiated underthissub- section after the expiry ofthree catendar years from the date ofthe order sought to be revised; (b) no order shalt be revised by Uie Commisstoner under this sub-section where a second appeaf against such order is pending before the Tribunal or such appeal has been decided by the Tribunal on merits." Sub-section (4) of Section 49 provides that any dealer or persen objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) n»y appeat to the Tribunal within sixty days of ttie date on which the order is communicated to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 49 further provides that the provisions of sub-section (4), (5)and (6) of section 48 shall, mutatts mutandis, appiy to appeats filed under sub-section (4). Therefore, after perusal of the entire section 49 along with the provisions of Section 48 etc. it is clear that the impugned order passed under section 49 (3) by the Commissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur is an appealable order and the remedy of the appeat is an alternative efRcacious remedies with the petitioner. Since an efficacious altemaUve statutory remedy is already with the petitioner, In am not inclined to admtt this petitioner for further hearing. Accordingly. W.P.CO No.1433/2010 is dlsposed of at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Vanijyite Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. - ~ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Vitil'