IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6197 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 11.04.2008 M/s The Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Bhogpur, Distt. Jalandhar .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 6.11.2006, passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Assessing Officer was dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of pre- deposit amount; order dated 9.5.2007, passed by the Chairman VAT Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby application of the petitioner for pre- deposit was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to make the payment within a period of three months, which period was extended from time to time upto February, 2008; and the notice dated 18.3.2008, whereby the CWP No. 6197 of 2008 -2- petitioner was directed to deposit the additional demand on or before 25.3.2008. Exactly, the similar petition i.e. CWP No. 5634 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn on April 04, 2008 by this Court, while passing the following order: “After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to avail its alternative remedy, under the law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.” Though, in this petition, the petitioner has disclosed the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition, bur during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars. When file of the earlier writ petition was called, this was not found so. Since the similar writ petition has already been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy, under the law, which remedy has not been availed so far, therefore, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 11, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE