Statutory appellate remedy prevails as writ challenge is declined, with delay to be assessed after rectification and writ proceedings.

A writ challenge to an adjudication order and rejection of rectification was not entertained on merits, as the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and raise all questions of law and fact before the appellate authority. If the appeal is filed with the required pre-deposit and an application to condone delay, the authority must consider the explanation for delay by taking into account the time spent in seeking rectification and prosecuting the writ proceedings. The appellate authority is then to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained against the adjudication order and rectification rejection order, or the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with consideration of delay arising from pendency of the rectification application and writ proceedings.

Analysis: The order records that the petitioner questioned the adjudication on merits and also challenged the rejection of rectification. The Court, without examining the merits of the tax demand, held that the petitioner may approach the appellate authority and raise all grounds of law and fact. It further directed that, if an appeal is filed with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, the appellate authority should consider the explanation for delay by taking into account the period spent in pursuing the rectification application and the writ petition.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy, with the appellate authority to consider delay in the manner indicated and then decide the appeal in accordance with law.

---