^i'^^N^^^^^-yi^^^^''^.^'^l^l^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^il .:®sig \'/ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETmQNER RESPONDENTS •^ W.P.m No.1451of2010 Simplex Infrastructures Limited (Formeriy known as Simptex Concrete Piles (india) Limited, a company incoiporated under fte Companies Act, 1856, having its registered office at 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700)17, in the State of West Bengal and an ofRce at C-12, Netaji Gomplex (2nd Floor), Mandir Chowk, Jharabhata, Bilaspur - 495001, District: Bilaspur, in the State of Chhattisgarh represented by Mr. Sandip Baran Das, Deputy General Manager and Poww of Attorney. Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh through the Secrstary, Department of Commercial Taxes, D.K.S. Mantraiaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner of Commereial Tax, Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Commereial Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ApDearancfi: Mr. Bhaskar Payashl, Advocate for the pefltioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Generai for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAILORDER (05.04.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. The petitioner-Simptex Infrastructures Limited has fited this petition chatlenging the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure-P/9) passad by the Commissioner, Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Admittedly, this order has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 49 of ths Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, Act, 2005. Sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the said Act reads as fotlows:- "(3) The Commissioner may on his own motion or on information received call for and examine the record of any W.P.fDNo. 1451 of2010 proceeding under this Act if he considere that any order passed therein by any pereon appointed under Secfion 3 to assist him including any officer to whom he has delegated his powers under sub-section (1) is erroneous in so far as it is prejucBcial to the interest ofttie revenue, and he may, after giving the dealer or person a reasonable opportunity of being heard,and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass withinone caiendar 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 cancding the assessment and directing a fresh assessment: Providedthat- (a) no proceeding shall be initiated under thfe sub- section after the expiry of three calsndar years from the date ofthe order soughtto be revised; (b) no order shall be revised by the Commissioner under this sub-section where a second appeal against such order is pending before the Tribunal or such appeal has been decided by the Tribunai on merits." Sub-section (4) of Section 49 prowdes that any dealer or peeson objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-sectton (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 fx-ovides that the provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (6) of section 48 shatl, mutatte nwtandis, appiy to appeals filed under sub-section (4). Therefore, after periBal of the endre section 49 atong with the provisions of Section 48 etc. it is clear that the impugned order passed under section 49 (3) bythe Commissioner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur is an appealable order and ttie remedy of the sffsal ts an alternative efficacious remedies with the petiUoner. Since an efRcacious altemafive statutory remecfy Is already with the petitioner, In am not inclined to admit this peUUoner for ftirther hearing. Accordingly. W.P.(T) No.1451/2010 is disposed of at this stage. However, the pedtioner would be at liberty to avail stahrtory remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissjoner Vanijyik Kar Chhattisgarh, Raipur. — ——— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge .,^