In W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, the petitioner challenged the Ext.P6 assessment order. When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy. Then, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that under the new tax regime—Goods and Services Tax— so far the appeal mechanism has not been put in place. Later, on instructions, the Government Pleader informed the Court that then the appellate forums for the first and second appeals had started functioning. The first appellate authority is the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 23rd October 2018, in terms of an earlier judgment, dated 13th July 2018, in W.P.(C) No.23057 of 2018.
2. Now the petitioner has come up with this review
3. According to the petitioner’s counsel, as the petitioner bona fide pursued its remedy before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, there occurred some delay, which would be fatal if the petitioner goes before the appellate authority. There ought to be an observation on that delay from this Court. According to him, the judgment in the earlier writ petition, based on which this writ petition was disposed of, contained no reference to the delay.
4. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Pleader.
5. I reckon the petitioner’s apprehension is genuine. I, therefore, in modification of the judgment dated 23rdOctober 2018 in W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, hold that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority—the fourth respondent—within two weeks from today, he will condone the delay that has occurred in the petitioner’s pursuing its remedy before this Court.
In the manner indicated above, the review petition stands allowed and the judgment under review also stands modified.