IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.315 of 2008 --------------------------------------- T.A.NO.180/2007 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - ORDER DATED 18.01.2008. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000) .................... PETITIONER/ASSESSEE:- -------------------------------------- A.J.NISSAR, PROVISION DEALER, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU. RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.315 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th November, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. The relevant assessment year is 1999-2000. (2) The assessee is a dealer, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“Act” for short). (3) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the first appellate authority, the assessee has preferred second appeal before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.180 of 2007. In filing the appeal, there was a delay of 995 days. To condone the delay in filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had also been filed. (4) The Tribunal, after considering the explanation offered in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay, has come to the conclusion, on facts, that, the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by the assessee. Therefore, they have rejected the application filed for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was also rejected. (5) Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the assessee is before us in this revision petition. S.T.Rev.No.315/2008 2 - (6) Interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 41 of the Act is now well defined. Under Section 41 of the Act, this Court can entertain a revision petition, provided, the Tribunal has failed to decide any question of law or has decided any question of law erroneously or if there is a perverse finding. The orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal is purely based on the fact situation pleaded by the assessee in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay. The consistent view of this Court as well as the apex Court is, that, refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal can never be the subject matter of a revision petition. (7) In the above view of the matter, we do not see any reason to entertain this revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-