ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Bilaspur dated 21.07.2022, whereby the order dated 16.09.2001 passed by the learned Commercial Tax Officer has been affirmed. By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought for following relief(s):- “10.1 Set aside/quash the 21.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by Divisional Deputy Commissioner by which the order dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Commercial Tax Officer has been confirmed, and/or 10.2 Allow the Revision filed by the petitioner concern, and/or 10.3 Direct the Respondent authorities to act and assess in accordance with law, upon the material available before it, and/or 10.4 Grant any other relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is sole proprietorship firm, engaged in the trading of FMCG materials such as Aata (flour), salt, match boxes and Pan Masala etc. Since the assessment year 2016-2017, assessment proceeding under Section 21 & 22 of the Valued Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'Act of 2005') was initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer and notice was issued to the petitioner for producing the account books and other supporting documents for assessment. 3. The petitioner presented account statements and audit reports before the authority on 16.09.2021 and thereafter the Commercial Tax Officer passed the assessment order and imposed an additional tax liability of Rs.1,52,311/-. The petitioner preferred revision under Section 49 of the Act of 2005 and vide order dated 21.07.2022 same has been dismissed affirming the findings recorded by the Assessment Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that principle of natural justice has not been complied with and the order dated 16.09.2021 has been passed by the Assessment Officer without application of mind. He would further submit that requisite records were submitted, but they have not been considered while passing the order dated 16.09.2021. It is also stated that no discrepancy was pointed out by the Commercial Tax Officer, nonetheless the additional tax of Rs.1,52,311/- has been imposed. He has further argued that turnover to the amount of Rs.35,56,870/- from the Tax Slab of 5% has been shifted to turnover of 14.5% Tax Slab without any justifiable reason. It is also stated that no discrepancy was pointed out by the Commercial Tax Officer, nonetheless the additional tax of Rs.1,52,311/- has been imposed. He has further argued that turnover to the amount of Rs.35,56,870/- from the Tax Slab of 5% has been shifted to turnover of 14.5% Tax Slab without any justifiable reason. The Revisional Authority has affirmed the order passed by the Assessment Officer without taking into consideration the contentions made and grounds raised by the petitioner. He would also submit that mechanical order has been passed ignoring the settled judicial precedent. Thus, he would pray to set aside the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (T) No. 36 of 2018 dated 16.02.2018 (M/s Jaika Automobiles and Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and would submit that rightly or wrongly the revision petition filed by the petitioner was entertained by the revisional authority and has been decided on merits, therefore, writ petition is maintainable. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents would submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy to challenge the order dated 21.07.2022 before competent forum, but the petitioner for reasons best known to him filed writ petition by passing the statutory remedy. She would further submit that even the petitioner may prefer appeal against the order passed by the Revisional Authority according to Section 49(4) of the Act of 2005. She would next contend that for assessment of transaction of the year 2016-2017, the assessment notice under Form 28 was issued to the petitioner on four different dates i.e. 04.03.2021, 10.06.2021, 02.08.2021 and 25.08.2021. The petitioner was present before the Assessment Officer and after providing due opportunity of hearing and perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner, penalty has been imposed. She would further submit that applicable rate of sale tax has been filed for the first time before this Court and it was not produced before the authorities. The petitioner was present before the Assessment Officer and after providing due opportunity of hearing and perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner, penalty has been imposed. She would further submit that applicable rate of sale tax has been filed for the first time before this Court and it was not produced before the authorities. It is next contended that bifurcation of rate of tax applicable in the sale or purchase was not reflected on audit report presented before the Assessing Officer and it was not properly bifurcated, therefore, under the authority of law, the competent authority had bifurcated the same to the best of its judgment. She would submit that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Chapter 14 of the Act of 2005 deals with appeal, revision and rectification. Section 49 of the Act of 2005 deals with power of revision by Commissioner, which reads as under:- “49. She would submit that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Chapter 14 of the Act of 2005 deals with appeal, revision and rectification. Section 49 of the Act of 2005 deals with power of revision by Commissioner, which reads as under:- “49. Power of revision by Commissioner– (1) The Commissioner– (i) in respect of any other passed by any officer specified in clauses (b) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, may on his own motion: or (ii) in respect of any order passed by any officer specified in clauses (d) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, on an application by a dealer or person made within the prescribed period from the date of order, shall; call for the record of the proceeding in which such order was passed and on receipt of the record may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made, as he considers necessary and subject to the provisions of this Act may, pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the dealer or person as he thinks fit within one calendar year from the date of filing such application for revision : Provided that– (a) the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this subsection, where an appeal against the order is pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner or the Tribunal or where, if such appeal lies, the time within which it may be filed has not expired; (b) no revision shall lie,– (i) against an order determining the liability of a dealer to pay tax or against a notice issued under this Act for assessment except after an assessment order is passed; and (ii) against an order passed under Section 36. Explanation.– An order by the Commissioner, declining interference shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the dealer or person. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the revision under sub-section (1) is in respect of an order of reassessment or re-imposition of penalty in pursuance of any direction given in appeal or revisions, the Commissioner may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), but shall not remand the case. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the revision under sub-section (1) is in respect of an order of reassessment or re-imposition of penalty in pursuance of any direction given in appeal or revisions, the Commissioner may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), but shall not remand the case. (2) The Commissioner may on his own motion call for the record of any proceeding in which any order under sub-section (1) has been passed by an officer to whom the Commissioner has delegated his powers under this section in pursuance of the provisions of Section 43 and on receipt of the record, may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made as he considers necessary and subject to the other provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the dealer or person as he thinks fit. (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 delegated his powers under sub-section (1) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the 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 within one calendar year from the date of initiation of proceeding such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment : Provided that – (a) no proceeding shall be initiated under this sub-section after the expiry of three calendar years from the date of the order sought to 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 Tribunal on merits. (4) Any dealer or person objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) may appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him. (4) Any dealer or person objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) may appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him. (5) The provision of sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 48 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to appeals filed under sub-section (4). (6) Where the Commissioner considers that any order passed under sub-section (1) by his predecessor or any Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he may file an appeal against such order before Tribunal within two years from the date of such order. The provisions of Section 48 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the appeals filed under this sub-section.” 8. From bare reading of Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act of 2005, it is apparent that the Commissioner in respect of any order passed by any officer such as Appellate Deputy Commissioner or Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner; Assistant Commissioner or Additional Assistant Commissioner; Commercial Tax Officer or Additional Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer may on his own motion, call for the records of the proceedings in which such order was passed and may enquire the record according to the provisions of this Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act of 2005 says in cases where orders have been passed by Assistant Commissioner or Additional Assistant Commissioner; Commercial Tax Officer or Additional Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, then on an application by a dealer or person made within the prescribed period, the Commissioner may call for the record of the proceeding in which such order has been passed and enquire into the matter according to this Act. Difference between clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act of 2005 is that, in clause (i) the Commissioner may exercise power on his own motion only, whereas according clause (ii) the Commissioner may exercise revisional power on an application made by a dealer or person. According to Section 49 (2) of the Act of 2005, the Commissioner may on his own motion call for the record of any proceeding of cases where the power was delegated by the Commissioner to any officer. According to Section 49 (2) of the Act of 2005, the Commissioner may on his own motion call for the record of any proceeding of cases where the power was delegated by the Commissioner to any officer. Section 49 (3) of the Act of 2005 says that the Commissioner may on his own motion or on information received, call for and examine the record. Section 49 (4) of the Act of 2005 says that any dealer or person objecting to an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) where the Commissioner on his own motion or on information examined the record of any proceeding and passed the order, such dealer or person may appeal to the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him. Section 49 (6) of the Act of 2005 says that if the order passed by predecessor of the Commissioner is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he may file such appeal before the Commissioner within two years from the date of such order. 9. In the matter of M/s Jaika Automobiles and Finance Ltd. (supra), the order was passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 49 (1) of the Act of 2005 and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, wherein this Court in para 16 held as under:- “16. Since right or wrongly the revision petition filed by the petitioner as entertained by the revisional court and the same having been decided on merits, the only remedy left for the petitioner would be that of filing of a petition before the High Court. Since the revisional authority has gone into the veracity of the contentions put forth in the revision petition, without touching maintainability aspect of the revisional authority in a case where the revision was preferred without preferring an appeal, the petitioner now may not have any other statutory remedy available and under the said circumstances, the only recourse left for him is to file a writ petition.” 10. In the present case, Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.09.2021 imposed the penalty of Rs.1,52,311/- upon the petitioner after examining and scrutinizing ledger accounts and other documents produced by the petitioner and the order has been affirmed by the respondent No. 3. In the present case, Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.09.2021 imposed the penalty of Rs.1,52,311/- upon the petitioner after examining and scrutinizing ledger accounts and other documents produced by the petitioner and the order has been affirmed by the respondent No. 3. From perusal of the order dated 21.07.2022, it appears that Divisional Commissioner, Commercial Tax has exercised suo moto powers provided under Section 49 (3) of the Act of 2005 while deciding the Revision Case No. 05/BC/02/22. The revision was not preferred by the petitioner, whereas in para – 8.6, the petitioner has categorically pleaded that “aggrieved by the vague, non-speaking and arbitrary assessment order the petitioner concerned preferred a revision under Section 49 of the Act of 2005, inviting attention towards the prejudicial order”. This contention made by the petitioner is totally misconceived. The revision was not preferred by the petitioner, but the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department exercised the power given in the sub-section (3) of 49 of the Act of 2005, therefore, the contention of counsel for the respondents appears to be legally correct that an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) of the Section 49 of the Act of 2005 is appealable to the Tribunal within sixty days. In the matter of M/s Jaika Automobiles and Finance Ltd. (supra), this issue was not discussed as to under what provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 2005 revision was preferred before the revisional authority, therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that rightly or wrongly the revision petition filed by the petitioner was entertained by the revisional court and the same having been decided on merits, and the only remedy left would be that of filing of the petition before the High Court, but in the present case all provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 2005 have been discussed and from perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the order has been passed by the revisional authority exercising the power under Section 49 (3) of the Act of 2005, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 49 (4) of the Act of 2005, the appeal would lie to the Tribunal. 11. It would be worthy to say that when there is efficacious statutory remedy available in favour of the petitioner, normally the writ petition should not be entertained. 11. It would be worthy to say that when there is efficacious statutory remedy available in favour of the petitioner, normally the writ petition should not be entertained. In the present case when there is efficacious remedy available in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and consequently, same is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition stands dismissed.