1 2025:CGHC:9327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 336 of 2017 • M/s Ganpati Motors, A Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Shri Khemamal Madhyani, S/o Late Shri Teomal Madhyani Aged About 63 Years R/o Sawarkar Market, Opp. Basant Talkies, G.E. Raod, Supela Durg-Bhilai Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Commercial Taxes, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Commissioner (Appellate), Commercial Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Neelabh Duby, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 24/02/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identical issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of M/s Ganpati Motors vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others passed in PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.02.24 16:29:18 +0530 2 WA No.219/2017 vide the order dated 16.05.2019, wherein it has been held that the date of receipt of the notice by the appellant is not significant and only the date on which the authority decide to call for the relevant record for scrutiny is material as per the principle laid down in the matter of N. Ranga Rao & Sons vs. State of Karnatka and Others1, therefore, he prays to dispose of this Petition in the similar terms. 2. Learned counsel for the State would support the aforesaid settled legal proposition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully 4. Learned counsel for the parties fairly admit that the initiation of the notice in suo motu revision under Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, is within limitation as the same was issued on 26.12.2016, though the same was received on 23.01.2017 after the expiry of the limitation. But now the issue has already been settled, as the relevant date is the initiation of the notice and not date of receipt, so this Petition has no substance. 5. Accordingly, the show cause notice dated 26.12.2016 is held to be valid and the same is not barred by limitation. 6. Consequently, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka 1 (2007) 9 SCC 691