HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PET!TIQNER W.P.(T» No. 1438 of2010 Simptex Infrastmctures Lin'rfted (Formerly knovm as Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Limited, a company incorporated under fte Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 70)017, in the State of West Benga! and an office at C-12, Netaji Comptex (2nd Floor), Mandir Chowk, Jharabhate, Bilaspur - 495001, District: Biiaspur, in the State of Ghhattisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy General Manager and Power of Attomey. Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh througti the Secretary, Department of Commsrcia! Taxes, D.K.S. Mantraiaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commerciaf Tax, Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, Civil Unes, Raipur (C.G.) 3. AddiUonal Commissioner of Commerciai Tax, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Assistant Commissioner of Cemmerciat Tax, Bilaspur(C.G.) WRiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA tooearance: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate for fte petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Stete/respondents on advance copy. RESPONDENTS General for the 1~ ^~i ORALORDER (05.04.2010) SUNfL KUMAR SINHA. J. i-teard. The petitioner- Simptex Infrastructures Umited has filed Uiis petition chaltenging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/14) pas%d by the Commissioner, VanijyikKar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Admittedly, this order has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of SecUon 49 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, Act, 2005. Sub-sectton (3) of Section 49 <rf the said Act reads as foitow®:- ?>>. s;l % 1 / / '^'..l/' W.P.fr)No.l43Sof20).0 v^ °(3j The Commissioner may on hia own motion OT on information received call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act if he considers that any order passed therein by any person appointed under Secfion 3 ts assist him including any officer to whom he has deiegated his powers under sub-section (1) Is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of ths revenue, and he may, after giving the deafer or pereon a reasonabte opportunity of being heard, and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass wittiin one caiendar year from the date of initiation of proceedings such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or mod'riying the assessment of eancelmg the assessment and directinga fresh assessment: Providedthat- (a) no proceeding shall be initiated under this aib- section after the expiry of three calendar years from the date of the order sought to be revised; (b) no order shall be revised by the Comraissiona- under this sub-section where a second appeal against such order is pending b^ore the Tribunal or such appeal has been decided by the Tribunai on merits." ) Sub-section (4) of Section 49 provides Vhat any dealer or perswi objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-sectien (3) may appeat to the Tribunal within sbdy days of tte date on which the order is communicated to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 49 further provicte that the provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (6) of secton 48 shall, mutafe mutondis, apply to appeals filed under sub-section (4). Therefore, after pensal of the entire section 49 along with the provisions pf Section 48 etc. it is clear that the impugned order passed under section 49 (3) bythe Commissioner Vanijyit; Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur is an appealabte order and the renwdy af the appeal is an altemativeefficacious remedies with the pditioner. Since an efficacious atternath/e statutory remedy is already with the petiUoner, In am not inclined to admit this petitioner for further hearing. Accordingly. W.P.(T) No.1435/2010 is disposed of atftis stage. However, the petitioner woutd be at liberty to avail stgtutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Coinmissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. ~- --- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge >t/