Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(2] Appeal against the order of Singl Judge made in cxerci e of original jurisdiction.-LPA refused High Court on the grounds that the order was pas ed in exercise of pow r of supenntendence under Art 227 of the Constitution of India therefore LPA is not maintainable & the Apex Court's earlier order only waived lhe limitation, Held, that, High CHC)393 HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DBJ ADHINI'.'AM, 2005 Court was not justified in holding that Apex Court's earlier order only waived the limitation for filing a l;PA. The High Court wa directed to dispose of ?he LPA on merits if it was otb rwis free from defect. On that core alone the High Court's order is unsustainable. In addition, the High Court eems t.o have gone by the nomenclature i.e. th de criptlon given in the writ petition to be one under Art.227 of the Constitution. The High Court did not consider the nature of the controversy and the prayer involved in the Writ Petition. The prayer was to quash the order of assessment passed by the Asst. Commissioner. Commercial Tax levying purchase as well as Entry Tax. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Letters Patent Appen.l was not maintainable. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2009(2) MPLJ 227 (SC)<FB). [3] Error of law .-An error of law made by a Tribunal can be corrected by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition was filed not only under Article 227 but also under Art.226 of the Constitution therf"fore the order passed by the single Judge is the order under Article 226 of the Condtitulion and an appeal aguinst the order was available to the Division Bench under the Act of 2005. Ramanuj Tiuiari u. M.P. State Co.opera/we Tribunal, 200 RN