This Review Petition has been posted before this court today at my instance to remedy a wrong that was occasioned to the petitioner through a dismissal of his writ petition, and later, his Review Petition. W.P.(C).No.15297/2020 was preferred by the writ petitioner impugning demand-cum-recovery notices that were issued to him under the GST Act, pursuant to a best judgment assessment that was completed in terms of Section 62 of the GST Act.

2. In the writ petition, it was the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as he had not been served with a copy of the assessment orders immediately after they were passed, and he came to know of the same only much later, at the time of service of the demand notices, the returns that he had filed within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said demand notices ought to be taken as filed within the time permitted for such filing of returns for the purposes of Section 62 of the GST Act, and a consequential withdrawal effected, of the assessment orders passed thereunder. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected by this court based on the averments of the respondent State Government in its counter affidavit, that the assessment orders had, in fact, been communicated to the petitioner through uploading the same on the common web portal as statutorily permitted under Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act. In the absence of any reason to disbelieve or contradict the said averments of the respondent, this court accepted the same and found against the petitioner on the issue of filing of returns within the time stipulated under Section 62 of the Act. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue its appellate remedy against the assessment orders in question.

3. A review petition subsequently filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this court as devoid of merit.

4. Subsequently, during the course of hearing of another writ petition, where the same issue came up for consideration, this court had occasion to interact with the officers of the GST department of the State, who were familiar with the technical aspects of uploading orders of the State authorities on the common web portal. It then became apparent that the assessment orders were not being simultaneously uploaded on the common web portal and that the statements made before this court on the earlier occasion were as regards uploading of the assessment orders on the back-end web portal maintained by the State Government and not to the common web portal maintained by the GST Network.

5. It is apparent therefore that the factual basis that informed the decision in WP 15297/2020 was erroneous and needs to be corrected in the larger interests of rendering justice to the petitioner. A litigant ought not to suffer on account of a mistake committed by the court, more so when the court itself is convinced that a mistake did occur.

I therefore suo moto recall my order dated 21.10.2020 in R.P. No.747/2020 and allow the same.

Order Dated 21.10.2020

The petitioner has preferred this Review Petition seeking to review the judgment dated 29.09.2020 in W.P(C).No.15297 of 2020. In the Review Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the Writ Petition was decided against him by relying on the comparative chart containing details furnished in paragraph 5 and 7 of the statement filed on behalf of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the dates shown in the said paragraph as date of issue of assessment order does not reflect the correct date on which the assessment orders were put up on the web portal of the Department and the actual date of publishing the order in the web portal was much later, and on the dates indicated in the Review Petition.

On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the statement filed by the respondents that was relied upon while passing the judgment aforesaid, was filed on 19.08.2020. On receipt of the statement the petitioner had filed a reply to the same and the final hearing of the Writ Petition was on 29.09.2020. The contention now taken by the petitioner, as regards availability of material that would suggest that the date on which the Department had posted the details of the assessment order on the web portal are not correct, is one that was available to the petitioner to establish at the time of final hearing. This material not having been produced then, I am of the view that the production of the said material, and raising such contentions in a Review Petition is not permissible. It is open for the petitioner to approach the appellate court with materials that it may have in its possession to dislodge the findings of fact in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I find no reason to review the judgment dated 29.09.2020 in W.P(C).No.15297 of 2020. The Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.