1>> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BtLASPUR PETITIONER W.P.tTl No.14S3of2010 Simplex Infrastmctures Limited (Formerly known as Simplex Concrete Piies (India) Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered ofRce at 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700017, in the State of West Benga! and an office at C-12, Netaji Compiex (2nd Flbor), Mandir Ghowk, Jharabhata, Bilaspur - 4SKS01, District: Bilaspur, in the State of Chhattisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy Generai Manager and Power of Attomey. Versus 1 State of ChhatUsgarh through the Secretary, Departmsnt of Commereial Taxes, D.K.S. Mantraiaya Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commereial Tax, Vanij^k Kar Bhawan, Civll Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Commercia! Tax, Korba(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORALORDER RESPONDENTS V) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. The petitioner- Simptex Infras&uctures Limited has filed this petition cHSIIenging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Mr. Arun Sao raises premiiinary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition arguing that the order passed by the Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur is an appealable order as the appeal againstthe said order ties before the Tribunal. ''.> -^ C7|\ •y^'.'^', ,,. *''^st Ky iSiS?*"5 W.P,(T)No. 1453 of2010 Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referring to the decision renderned in Whlrtoool Corooraffon -Vs- Ftealstrar of Trade Marks. Mumbal & others, (1998) 8 SCC DCT. 1 argues that even in such situation, the High Court can errtertein this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. In Whirlpool Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court held that under Article 226 of the Constitojtion of the India, the High Court has a discreation to entertain or not to entertain the writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions,one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its writ jurisdiction. In the present case, admittedly there is an atternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the said remedy is efficacious. It is not a case where the writ petition is filed for enforcement of any of the fundamentat n'ghts or where there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is under chalienge. In the above facls and circumstances of the case, since an efficacious attemative statutory remedy of appeal is available with the petitioner, 1 am not inclined to admit the petition for further hearing. Accordingly, W.P.CO No. 1453/2010 is disposed of at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avaif statutory rememdy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur -—— Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Mca.s-t.'