IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8622 of 2008 M/S LAXMI PRESS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suryadeo Pd. Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Sidhendra Nr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramjee Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : A.A.G.-9 ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 15th July, 2008. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 12th March, 2008 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Commercial Taxes, Muzaffarpur, affirming the order dated 4th July, 2007, passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur. 2. It will be seen that the order dated 4th July, 2007, has been passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer under Section 32(1)(c) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under section 72 of the Act, 2005 to the Joint Commissioner, who has by his order dated 12th March, 2008 dismissed the appeal. - 2 - 3. Section 73 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read, thus: - “73. Appeal to Tribunal.- (1) Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government, any of the authorities mentioned in section 10 or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner under section 72 or the Commissioner under section 74 or section 77, may, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a dealer, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such dealer has deposited in the manner specified by the Tribunal, twenty five per cent, of the amount in dispute: Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount required to be deposited under this section. (3) Every application for appeal under this section shall be filed within ninety days of the communication of the order which is sought to be appealed, but where the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not applying within time, it may condone the delay. (4) No order under this section shall be passed without giving the applicant as also the authority whose order is sought to be appealed or their representative a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against. (6) The Tribunal shall send the copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the concerned authority against whose order the appeal had been preferred. (7) The appeal filed before the Tribunal under sub- section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal.” - 3 - 4. It would be seen that the order passed by the appellate authority, namely, Joint Commissioner under Section 72 of the Act of 2005 is amenable to appeal to the Tribunal. Remedy provided under Section 73 is efficient. 5. We, thus, find no justification to entertain this writ petition by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 73 of Act of 2005. If by this time the appeal has become time barred, it is for the petitioner to show sufficient cause and seek condonation of delay as required under Section 73(3) of Act of 2005. 6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine, accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-