- (1.) THIS writ application has been preferred mainly against the order passed by the Respondent No. 5, Commercial Taxes Officer, under Section 72 of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 imposing a penalty of Rs. 68,132/ - ,which is not paid by the petitioner. Instead of filing the revision application under Section 80 of the Act, 2005 before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, this writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that an adequate opportunity of being heard has not been given and the method, in which the penalty has been imposed, is wrong counter to settle principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 1969 2 SCC 627.
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this is a routine phenomena of the State of Jharkhand day and day, they are committing similar error, and therefore, writ application has been preferred.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents -State vehemently submitted that revision application under Section 80 of the Act, 2005 is tenable against an order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer vide order dated 20.01.2015. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that let the revision application be disposed of by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the impugned order passed the Commercial Taxes Officer, which is at annexure -4 to the memo of this writ application. Similarly, under Section 79 of the Act, 2005, appeal is also provided which can be filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Thus, under Section 79 as well as under Section 80, the remedy, which is efficacious alternative remedy, is available and hence this petition may not be entertained at this stage. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this application mainly for the reasons: - (i) The issue involved in this writ petition is about the valid permit of transit of the goods from one State to another which is properly known as Sugam -504 -G permit which is required in the hands of the transporter, when the goods are transported from one State to another, because of non -ability of this document, the goods were seized on 18.01.2015 as per the State of Jharkhand, and, therefore, show cause notice was given on 19.01.2015, and, immediately the order was passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer on 20.05.2015 which is at annexure -4 to the memo of this petition. The penalty imposed is Rs. 68,000/ -and odd which is approximately three times the tax amount as per Section 72 of the Act. This is an appealable order. (ii) Efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal, under Section 79 of the Act, 2005 is available with this petitioner which is availed in this case. (iii) Similarly under Section 80 of the Act, 2005 revision application can also be preferred by this petitioner. (iv) Thus, looking to the provisions of the Act, 2005, efficacious alternative remedy is available with this petitioner and the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, dated 20.01.2015 can be challenged and whatever arguments canvassed before this Court can also be canvassed before the Appellant Forum as well as before the Revisional Forum.;