HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH. BILASPW PETITIONER W.P.m No. 1482 of 2010 Simptex Infrastructures Limited (Formeriy kn<wn as Simplex Concrrte Piles (India) Limited, a Gompany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered ofRce at 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700017, in the State of West Bengal and an ofRce at C-12, Netaji Complex (21ri Floor), Mandir Chowk, Jharabhata, Bilaspur - 495001, Ustrict: Bitaspur, in the State of Chhattisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy General Manager and Power ef Attomsy. Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Cominercial Taxes, D.K.S. Manfraiaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commarcial Tax, Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, Civil Unes, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Commerciai Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIW OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Bhaskar Payashl, Advocate for the petWoner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Addttionai Advocate State/respondents on advance copy. RESPONDENTS Generai for the ORALORDER (05.04.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. ,1. Heard. The peUtioner- Simplex Infrastructures Limited has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/12) passed by the Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar ChhatUsgarh, Raipur. Admittedly, this order has been passed in exereise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 49 af tfie Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, Act, 2005. Sub-secUon (3) of Section 49 of the said Act resris as follows:- "(3) The Commissioner may on his own motlon or on information received ca!l for and examine the record of any :f.», "Q'iisssi^'' W.P.fDNo. 1452 of2010 ^ proceeding under this Act if he considers that aay ordei passed therein by any person appointed under Ssetron 3 to assist him inciuding any officer to whon' he has delegatad his pcwers under sub-section (1) is srroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest ofthe revenue, and he may, after giving the desler or person a reasonable opportuntty of being heprd, and after making or causing to be made such enqyiry as he deems necessaiy, pass within onecalendar year from the date of initiation of proceedings such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment of canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment: / Providedthat- (a) no proceeding shali be initiated underthis sub- section after ttie expiry of three calendar yeare from the date of the order sought to be revised; (b) no order shall be revised by the Gommissioner 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 person objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under 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 further provides that the provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (6) of section 48 shatt, mutatis mutandis, apply to appeals fited under sub-section (4). Therefore, after perusal of the entire section 49 along with the provisions of Section 48 etc. it is ctear that the impugned order passed under section 49 (3) by the Commissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur is an appealable order and the remedy of the appeal is an a!ternative efficacious remedies with the petitioner. Since an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is already with the petitioner, In am not inclined to admitthis petitioner forfurther hearing. Accordingly. W.P.pT) No.1452/2010 is disposed of at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at tiberty to avail statutory remedy <rf appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. —-~ Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge ^'A+b