P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the demand notice issued as long back as on 29-11-1993 demanding tax of Rs. 1,04,324/- for the year 1991-92 in respect of six buses that were being operated by A. P. State Road transport Corporation. The demand for differential tax was raised on the ground that the vehicles plied throughout the year on all weather routes and the routes in question cannot be treated as fair weather routes. It may be stated that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice issued prior to the issue of demand notice as seen from the impugned order dt. 29-11-1993. Nine months later an appeal was filed against the demand notice before the second respondent. In fact, no appeal lies as the appeal provided for under Sec. 12 read with Rule 15 is only in respect of penalty levied under Section 6 of the A. P. M. V. Taxation act. In spite of that, the appeal was disposed of on 26-2-1996 rejecting the contention of the petitioner and confirming the demand raised by the first respondent. Two years later, the regional Manager, Ranga Reddy Region filed a review petition to the Secretary, state Transport Authority (Transport commissioner) though there is no such provision at all. On 18-7-1998 the transport Commissioner informed the regional Manager that the appeal was time barred. In fact, the Transport commissioner should have rejected the so called review petition on the ground that there was no provision for such review petition and in any case no further appeal lies against the order of the deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, one and half years later the present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality of the demand notice as confirmed by the second respondent. ( 2 ) FROM the narration of the facts, it is clear that the petitioner went on pursuing remedies not provided for at a leisurely pace and moved this Court nearly four years after the demand was confirmed in appeal without even giving plausible explanation for the delay and for pursuing a course of action not contemplated by law. ( 2 ) FROM the narration of the facts, it is clear that the petitioner went on pursuing remedies not provided for at a leisurely pace and moved this Court nearly four years after the demand was confirmed in appeal without even giving plausible explanation for the delay and for pursuing a course of action not contemplated by law. The petitioner- corporation, which is supposed to have competent legal advice, has entirely ignored the fact that it is bound by the provisions of the statute levying tax and it should seek remedies within four corners of the Taxation Act and the rules. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of gross latches and its conduct does not justify interference under Art. 226 of the constitution of India at this distance of time. ( 3 ) THE only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits is that the tax cannot be demanded for the anterior period even if deficit tax was paid and it amounts to retrospective levy. In fact, such contention has not been raised at any stage before the transport authorities. We are not inclined to go into this contention which is more of technical nature for the reasons already mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner reminds us of the indisputable proposition that there is no limitation to seek remedy under Art. 226 of the constitution and submits that as third party is not affected, the writ petition can be entertained at any time. We cannot accept this, contention on the facts of the case. The petitioner-Corporation apparently proceeded on the premise that it is their choice and privilege to file writ petition at any time they like. We cannot countenance this attitude on the part of the petitioner. Not even an explanation is offered for unreasonable delay and peculiar course of action was chosen by the petitioner. The argument is therefore rejected. ( 4 ) THE writ petition is dismissed. No costs.