WA/591/2013 of M/s Preetam Auto Vs The Commissioner Commercial Tax Division-2 And Ors. on 20 December 2013

(1) The Commissioner

Commercial Tax

Division—2,[Bilaspur](C.G.)

The Deputy Commissioner

Commerioal Tax,

Division—2, Bilaspur (C.G.)

(3) The Commercial Tax Officer,

Circle— Janjgir,

District—Jangir—Champa (C.G.)

WRIT APPEAL U/ S 2f 1) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT(APPEAL[TO][ DIVISION] BENCH)ACT, 2006

TheAppellantdoesherebymostrespectfullypreferthisWritAppeal as under:

TRQWWttmwtmwmmmmmwwm‘mmmlmmmm»tmmwmowMmwmmwwummwm __

,i

l/

F

W

Hi$H CGUR? OF CHHAT‘HSGARH AT BELASFUR

IHQfé'BLE 3HRI RN. CHANiiRAKARJé.

WRIT APPEAL N0. 591 GF 2313

AFELIAN?:Mis Preetam Auto, 3akti

RESF$NDENT$

Versus

:The C0mmi55ioner, Commercial Tax,

5DiviSEDn-z, Bilaspur & Others.

WRIT APEAL UNDER SECTKIN 2(1) DF THE CHHATTISGARI—i HIGHCCMRT (APFEAL TO EMSION BENEJ-i} Ai'l', 2§Q$

Present:Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for the appeiiant 0 R D E R(2&1[2-2§13])

Thefoiiuwingorderof theCourt wasdictated§n the openCourt by5unii Kumar Einha, J.

k—-LA‘ No.01 ailowed.

h)»Delav condoned.

t)aHeard on admission.

4. The appelient is a eeaier registered under the 0G. VAT Act, 2005 (for “theehortAct“). The appeiient daimed that it hae aent statement in Form T4claiming input tax rebate of Rs. 3,§1,1 70l— in respect of tax paid goods held inthe ciosing stock as on 3t—03—2G06, under Section 73 of the Act. According totheappeliant, theaaid Statement wee sent to the iiommeroiel TaxDftieer, ‘

EiraieJam'gir(fespgndentN93),undErapa5talcertificate.Inregpeciofassesamentyear[2058-07]also,theappellantclaimedinputtaxrebateofRs.§,83,435/—.The case of me appeiiant is that in a3sessment, respondentNo.3 alrswed input taxrebatF, of Rs.§,83,435/— whiieit wrongiy rejected thedaim of input tax rebate of R3191 ,17§/~. Aggrieved by the asse33ment order,‘a revis§on petition was {iied and the matter was remanded to respondent No.3forconeideretion.Respondent No.3againrejectedthecieimof input taxrebate at R3191 ,‘i?0/- against which again a revision petition was fried whichwasdismissedbytheorderdated25—1ti‘2012.Thesaidorder waseheiiengedinWritPetition(T)No.i3i’2i313.Thewritpetitionhasbeendismissed.Hence, this; appeai.

5. We have heard counsei tor the appeiiant.

6. $ection 2 oi the Chhettisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act.2%8 {heteinatter referred to as[“the]Act") provides that an appeai sheii iie froma judgment or order passed by one judgeof the High Courtinexercise oforiginei jurisdiction under Articie 226 ot the Constitution oi indie, to a DivisionBeneh comprising of two judges otthe eame High Court.2%8 {heteinatter referred to as[“the]Act") provides that an appeai sheii iie froma judgment or order passed by one judgeof the High Courtinexercise oforiginei jurisdiction under Articie 226 ot the Constitution oi indie, to a DivisionBeneh comprising of two judges otthe eame High Court.

i’.Proviao to sub—section (i) oi 3ection 2 oi the Act says that no suchappeei shaiiiie against an interiocutory order or against anorder passedin*exerciseof supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227oi theConstitutionoiindie.appeei shaiiiie against an interiocutory order or against anorder passedin*exerciseof supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227oi theConstitutionoiindie.

8. Admittediy, the Writ Court has exercisad supervisory jurisdicticm uncier Articie 227' of {he €on3titution of india.The contents of the impugned mderwouio Showthat noiurisdictionunderAriicie226of theConst‘tutionwas-exercised by the Writ Court.

9in View of the proviso to sub—section (i) of Section 2 of the Act, thie writ appeal wouici not be maintainable.

iii.Thie writ appeal, therefore, is dismieeeci 35 not maintainebie.

.W..wwm

Sd/-Sd/-iSUNIL KUMAR SINI-IA1RN. CHANDRAKAR.Judgei,~4Judge