the averments in the writ petition, which suggest that he had in fact appeared at the office of the 1st respondent on 18.08.2014, but the 1st respondent was not available in the office, and therefore, the petitioner had handed over the replies to the notice received by him, to the staff at the office of the 1st respondent ,who apparently refused to accept the replies in the absence of the 1st respondent. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the said averments in the writ petition to fortify his contention that the petitioner was actually present at the office of the 1st respondent on 18.08.2014, for the hearing that was fixed on that date. I note that, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, although, this fact was averred in the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader on instructions had submitted that there was no appearance of the petitioner before the office of the 1st respondent on the said date. It was under these circumstances that this Court did not deem it necessary to embark upon a consideration of disputed facts. At any rate, this Court only relegated the petitioner to his alternate remedy under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. I do not see any reason to review the judgment, that is impugned in the review petition, as no grounds are made out in the review petition for reviewing the same. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
