JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Goswami and Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing for the respondents. 2. Review Petition No. 88/2013 has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 1100/2009 whereas in Review Petition No. 89/2013, the petitioner is seeking review and/or recall of order dated 09/01/2013 passed in connection with WP(C) No. 12/2009. 3. It appears from the record that being aggrieved by the order dated 30/09/2008 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam holding that the transformation of underground raw water into packaged drinking water does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the AVAT Act, 2003 and as such, would not be eligible for tax benefit under the Industrial Policy introduced by the State, the North East Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association and another, as writ petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 12/2009 challenging the said decision espousing the cause of its associates who were having existing industrial units in Assam. 4. The review applicant was also attracted by the announcement of sales tax exemption for 7 (seven) years offered to the new units under the “Assam Industrial Policy, 2003”, and was desirous of setting up a industrial unit in Assam for manufacturing of packaged drinking water. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 04/09/2008 before the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Kamrup, seeking grant of Eligibility Certificate. However, since the respondents had not taken any action on the said application dated 04/09/2008 filed by the petitioner and apprehending that the determination made by the Commissioner of Taxes by order dated 30/09/2008 would also prejudicially affect the interest of the review petitioner, the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1100/2009 was filed by the present petitioner, inter-alia, assailing the order dated 30/09/2008. 5. By the judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 12/2009, the order dated 30/09/2008, issued by the Commissioner of Taxes was upheld by the Division Bench by observing that transforming raw water into packaged drinking water would not amount to manufacture of the same. 5. By the judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 12/2009, the order dated 30/09/2008, issued by the Commissioner of Taxes was upheld by the Division Bench by observing that transforming raw water into packaged drinking water would not amount to manufacture of the same. Since the writ petition WP(C) No. 1100/2009 preferred by the present review petitioner was also tagged with WP(C) No. 12/2009, hence, this Court had also passed a separate order dated 09/01/2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Goswami submits that although the question of validity of the determination made by the Commissioner of Taxes vide order dated 30/09/2008 was one of the issues raised in WP(C) No. 1100/2009 filed by the revision petitioner, yet, unlike in WP(C) 12/2009, the same was not the only issue raised by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the review petitioner had pleaded that de hors the “Drinking Water” the petitioner is also involved in manufacturing of plastic bottles, pet and jars and, therefore, would be entitled to exemption of sales tax under the Industrial Policy of 2003, on such count as well. 7. Mr. Goswami submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in the light of the judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 12/2009 and the petitioner’s counsel failed to argue the other issues raised in the writ petition. The learned senior counsel further submits that the issue regarding entitlement of the petitioner to get sales tax exemption on the manufacture of plastic bottles etc. is of vital importance to the interest of the petitioner company and, therefore, warrants adjudication by this Court. Mr. Goswami submits that failure on the part of the petitioner’s counsel to argue on an important issue raised in the writ petition would be a good ground warranting review of the order dated 09/01/2013. He further submits that if order dated 09/01/2013 dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1100/2009 filed by the petitioner is not reviewed/recalled and the writ petition is not heard afresh on the said aspect of the matter as well, than the same would result into serious miscarriage of justice. In support of his argument, Mr. Goswami has relied upon the following decisions :- i. AIR 181 AP 232 [Y. Venkannachowdary Vs. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General) Hyderabad District and Ors] ii. In support of his argument, Mr. Goswami has relied upon the following decisions :- i. AIR 181 AP 232 [Y. Venkannachowdary Vs. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General) Hyderabad District and Ors] ii. AIR 2005 SC 2677 (Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors) iii. AIR 1963 SC 1909 (Shivdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) iv. AIR 1971 SC 2162 (Girdhar Lal Gupta Vs. D.H. Mehta and another) v. 1959 (2) MLJ 201 (Ramaswami Padayachi Vs. Shanmugha Padayachi) vi. 2011 (5) SCC 365 (S. Thilagavathy vs. State of Tamilnadu and others). 8. Opposing the prayer made by the petitioner seeking review of the orders dated 09/01/2013, Mr. Saikia, learned senior AAG, Assam, submits that there is no merit in the contention raised by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the subject matter of dispute before the Division Bench, in the batch of writ petition was pertaining to the legality and validity of the determination made by the Commissioner of Taxes by the order dated 30/09/2008 and the question now sought to be raised was never urged before the Commissioner of Taxes by the petitioner. He submits that failure to urge a ground taken in the writ petition would amount to negligence on the part of the petitioner and the same cannot be a ground for reviewing/recalling the order dated 09/01/2013. In support of his argument, Mr. Saikia has relied upon the following decisions :- i. 2000 (9) SCC 253 (T.M. Jacob Vs, State of Kerala and another) ii. 2005 (4) SCC 741 (Board of Control for Cricket in India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others) iii. 2013 (8) SCC 320 (Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others) 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. From a reading of the judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed in connection with WP(C) 12/2009, it is apparent that the said writ petition was preferred by the Association of North East Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association, whose units were already under operation and the only issue raised by the petitioner therein was pertaining to the validity of the determination made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax by the order dated 30/09/2008. Arguments were advanced by the writ petitioner’s counsels on the basis of grounds taken in the writ petition and, therefore, the Division Bench by order dated 09/01/2013 had answered only the questions raised in WP(C) No. 12/2009, wherein the review petitioner was not a party. 10. The Writ Petition No. 1100/2009 filed by the review petitioner was disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 09/01/2013, which reads as follows :- “In view of order passed today in WP(C) No. 12/2009, this writ petition is also dismissed.” 11. From a bare reading of the order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 12/2009, we find that although the petitioner had raised the plea of Promissory Estoppels and legitimate expectation to receive the benefit of exemption under the Industrial Policy of 2003 besides claiming its right to receive exemption on account of the manufacture of the plastic bottles, yet, the learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to advance arguments on those issues as a result of which this Court did not have the occasion to consider the said issues on merit. 12. In the case of Netaji Cricket Club (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression “Sufficient Reason” used in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC was wide enough include even a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate for the purpose of entertaining a review application. Having noted the facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, the submission made by Mr. Goswami, we are of the opinion that the failure on the part of the petitioner’s counsel to argue on the collateral issues raised in the writ petition having a material bearing in the outcome of the writ petition would amount to sufficient reason for reviewing/recalling the order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 12/2009. 13. In the result, Review Petition No. 88/2013 stands allowed. The order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 1100/2009 is hereby recalled. However, in view of the submissions made by Mr. Goswami that the review petitioner is not questioning the findings and determinations made by this Court in the order dated 09/01/2013 passed in WP(C) No. 12/2009, no order is deemed necessary in Review Petition No. 89/2013. Both the Review petitions stand disposed of accordingly.