^ w HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.mNo. 1436 of2010 Simplex Infrastructures Limtted (Formerly known as Simplex Concrste Piies (India) Limiied, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office ^ 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017, in the State of West Bengat and an office at C-12, Netaji Comptex (2nd Floor), Mandir Chowk, Jharabhate, Bilaspur - 495001, District: Biiaspur, in the State of Chhatlisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy General Manager and Power or Attorney'. Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh threugh the Secretary, Department of Commsrcial Taxes, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commerciai Tax, Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, Civit Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Commissioner of Commerciai Tax, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax,Bilaspur(C.G.) WFUT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDjA A5iBaarance: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additionari Adyocate Generai for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (05.04.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA, J. Heard. The petitioner- Simptex Infrastructures Limited has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/17) passed by the Commissioner, Vanyyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Admittedly,. this order has been passed in axercise crf the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 49 ofthe Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, Act, 2005. Sub-secUon (3) of Section 49 of the said Act reads as follows:- ^k.! -":';^3"-;=-£-^ W.P.mNo. 1436 of2010 "(3) The Commissioner may on his own motion or 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 Section 3 to assist him including any officer to whom he has deiegated his powere under sub-secUon (1) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and he may, aftsr giving the dealer or person a reasonabte opportunity of being heard, and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass within one calendar year from the date of initetion of proceedings such order tftereon as the cireumstances of ths case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment of canceiing the assessment and directing a fresh assessment: Providedthat- (a) no proceeding shail ba initiated under this sub- section after the expsry of three catendar ysare from the date of the order sought to be revised; (b) no order shall be revised by the Commissioner under this sub-sectfon where a second afspeai against such order is pending before the Tribunal or such appeal has been decided by the Tribunaf on merits." Sub-section (4) of Section 49 provides that any dealer or pereon objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) may appeai to the Tribunat within sbcty days of the date on whteh 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 shall, mutatts mutandis, apply to appeals filed under sub-section (4). Therefore, after perusal of the entire section 49 along with the provisions of Section 48ete. rt is ctear that the impugned order passed under section 49 (3) by the Commissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Rafpur is an appeatabie order and the remedy of the appeal is an alternative efficacious remedies with the petitioner. Since an efficacious attemative statutory reraedy is already with ttie petitioner, In am not inciined to admitthis petitioner for further hearing. Accordingty. W.P.CT) No.1436/2010 is disposed of at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail statutwy remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Vanijylk Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •^a-Mi