w ff nt rfgsa- ^pwsa' .sSiB?'" e«gt:" -«ii IN^HEJIIG:HCOUK'r0F_CHHArns;GARH :_BILASPUR W.P. No. 645 of 2004 Petitioner M/s. Ramesh Kumar Khetan, unregistered finn, tbiough Proprietor Rainesh Kuiuar Khetaii, son of Jwaia Piasad Khetaa, aged about years, at and P.0. Sakti Distt. Janjgir Chanipa. Versus Respondeutg 1. Divisional Deputy Canunissioner, Conunercial Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Additional Corainissioner, Coiiuaercial Tax, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PElTriON UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONS'm'U'riON OP' IND1A (SB: Hon'ble SJiri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri H. B. Agrawal, Seisior Advocate wifh Ms Rinld Tacirakar, Advocate tbr fhe petitioner. Stsn Vtaay Hant, Deputy Advocate General tbr the respondeats/ State. Q^RD^R (Passed on fhis 19th Day ofJauuaiy, 2009} 1. Witb. the consent of the parties the matter is Jieard finally. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg tor fhe petitioncr submits tliat ttie petitioner questions the impugned order dated 28.5.2003 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Additional Conunissloner, Coininercial Tax, Raipur on the tbUowing grounds. Firstly, whether tbe Additional Coniiuissioner, Couuaercial Tax is competent to take suo inoto revision ^auist the order passed by ffae Divisional Deputy Comuussioaer, Coiniaercial Tax, Bilaspur. Secondly, ia a case wbere second appeal 1s inaiataiiiable wlietfaer " suo moto revision cau be taken by the Coiumissuiier/Additional Commissioner. 3. Section 3 (3) of the CUiatdsgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhmlyam, 1994 (fbr short 'fhe Act, 1994') clearly provides that the Comintesioner as well as fhe Additional Cominissioner have the saaie power as > vv:" ^ •'.'i .,-s^'' 4. - Thakut that of Coniiuissioner, wfaite exercisiiig tfaeir poweis uilder the provisions ot the Act. Section 62 of ttie Act, 1994 provides tbr power of revision by fhe Coiuiuissioner. Sub-section (1) inakes it clear that ftie Couunissioner eifher on his own m.0tioa, may or ............and Sub section. (3) also makes it clear that the Conunissioner/Additional CoKtmissioner at auy point of time niay take up the issue on its own suo inoto. There is bar only iu case where the second appeai either pendiag or question has been decided, Leamed counsel appearing ibr the petitioner subinits that fhe second appeal is maiataixiable before the Tribunal. In the facts of the case no second appeal was eifh.er filed or decided therelbre ftie provisions oi' the Act, 1994 xuakes it clear that the suo moto revision taken by the Additional Coinuussioner was just and proper. Tfaere is no other ground to impugn the unpugned order. Thus, the petition is accordiagly tails aad is dismissed. Consequently, M(W)P No. 574/2004 is also dismissed. However, on the request of leamed couiisel aQpeanng for the petitioner, Uberty is reserved to fb.e petitkiner to take recoiu-se to any other statutory forum fhat inay be available under provisions of law. As piayed, the certi&ed copy of the impugned order inay be returaed, ictaining a photo copy of the same. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge