IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18831 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. M/s Satya Trading Company, T.C.P. Gate, Kohima, Nagaland, having its head office Flat No. 2/A, Asra Aditya Apartments near Centre Point Junction, Bowenpally, Secunderabad -500011 (State Andhra Pradesh) through Proprietor K.RAghunandan Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, R/o Bangla No. 12, Carton Park, J.J. Nagar, P.S.-Qutubullahpur, District- Hyderabad, State Andhra Pradesh. 2. K.Raghunandan Reddy, Proprietor of M/s Satya Trading Company, S/o Malla Reddy, R/o Bangla No. 12, Carton Park, J.J. Nagar, P.S.- Qutubullahpur, District-Hyderabad, State Andhra Pradesh. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Nawada. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Check Post Rajauli, Nawada. 5. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Check Post Rajauli, Nawada. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG 1 Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG 1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 24-10-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 6,96,891/- imposed for the breach of statutory provisions contained in Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rules made thereunder, the dealer has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of Patna High Court CWJC No.18831 of 2011 (3) dt.24-10-2011 2 / 2 2 the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 1st October 2011 is an appealable order. In view of the statutory remedy of appeal available to the writ petitioner, this petition does not deserve to be entertained. The seized goods may be released on the petitioner making payment of the amount of penalty. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)