HIGH COURT Qf CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIOhllER RESPONDENTS W.P.tT) No. 1445 of 201 O Simplex infrastructures Umted (Formerty known as Simptex Concrete Rles (india) Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its r^istered office at 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kotkata—700017, in the State of West Benga! and an office at C-12, Netaji Complex (2nd Floor), Mandir Chowk, Jharabhata, Bilaspur - 49500'i, District: Biiaspur, in the State of Chhattisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy General Manager and Power of Attomey. Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarti through the Secretary, Department of Commereia! Taxes, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Vanij^k Kar Bhawan, Civi! Unes, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Commerciai Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETmONUNDERARTICl.EZZSOFTHECONSTITUTIONOFINDIA Appearance: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate for tho pefittoner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Genwai for the State/respondents on advance copy. CWALORDER (05.04.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. The petitioner- Simptex Infrastructures Limited has fited ftiis petitien chatlenging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/12) passed by the Commissioner, Vanijyik KarChhattisgarh, Raipur. Acimittedly, tftis order has been passed in exercise of the poweis conferred under sub-sertion (3) of Section 49 of the Chhatfsgarh Value Added Tax, Act,2005. Sub-secdon (3) of Section 49 of the said Act reads as fottows:- "(3) The Commissioner may on his own motion er on information received calt for and examine the record of any W.P.mNo. 1445 of2010 ^^l Rs^-'.i proceeding under this Act if he considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under SecUon 3 to assist him inciuding any offteer to whom he has ddegated his powers under sub-section (1) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest ofthe revenue, and he may, after giving the deater or person a reasonabie opportunity of being heard, and after maldng or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass within one caiendar year from the date of initiation of proceedings such order thereon as the cireumstances of ttie case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment of canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment: Providedthat- (a) no proceeding shall be inttiated under this sub- section after 1h®expiry of three calendar yeare from the date ofthe order sought to be revised; (b) no order shall be revised bythe Commissioner under this sub-section where a second appeal 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 perwn objecting to an order passed by the Comraissioner ynder sub-section (3) may appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 49 furttier provides that the provisions of sub-secUon (4), (5) and (6) of section 48 shalt, routefis mutandis, apply to appeals filed under sub-section (4). Therefore, after perusal of the entire section 49 atong with the provisions <rf SecUon 48etc. it is ctear ttiat the impugned order passed under secljon 49 (3) by ttie Commissioner Vanljyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur is an appealable order and Uie remedy of the appeal is an altemaUve efRcacious remedies with the petitioner. Sincean efficacious altemat'ive statutory remedy IB already with the petitioner, In am not inclined to admit thls petitioner for further hearing. Accordingly. W.P.(T) No.1445/2010 is disposed of at this stage. However, the petHioner would be at libertyto avail statutory remedy of appeat against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Vanqyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ,.A