Judicial review dismisses concern over jurisdiction when alternative remedy is pursued, upholding statutory processes.

O R D E R Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner seeks that the judgment of this Court dated

03.11.2025 be reviewed, impelling an apprehension that the Statutory Appellate Authority will not consider the question of jurisdiction of the officer which issued Exts.P5 and P7 orders. 2. We are not impressed by the afore apprehension because, as evident from the judgment sought to be reviewed, the appellant himself had sought permission to invoke the alternative remedy; and obviously, therefore, if he is to do so, then every contention – both factual and jurisdictional – will have to be decided by the said Authority, as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). We do not see why the petitioner should have filed this Review Petition at all, in such circumstances.

This Review Petition is consequently closed; with the afore observations.

After we dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.S.Anil Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, requested that his client be given two more weeks time to file the Statutory Appeal.

We record with appreciation that Smt.Thushara James –

learned Special Government Pleader, did not oppose this.

In the afore circumstances, we grant two weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner, to file his Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of the ‘CGST Act’.

Sd/-