IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28349 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.LEO RUBBERS, PARAGON BUILDINGS, SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, ABRAHAM MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.K.S.JAYARAJAN (VELUR) SRI.JINU K MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 2101 0369/90-91 DATED 21.12.1992 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSWESSMENT) SALES TAX SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. STA. 462/93 DATED 29.1.2004 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL), KOLLAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 32 DATED 28.8.2002 PRESENTED BEFORE THE ; RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 31C DATED 28.8.2002 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY PRESENTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.8.2002 PRESENTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. INT. P. 188 OF 2002 IN TA NO. 282 OF 2002 DATED 31.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN TA NO. 282 OF 2002 DATED 31.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN TA 25/2003 DATED 13.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28349 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT W.P.C. is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 2990 days. The ground raised for condonation of delay is that chartered accountant with whom file was entrusted did not file the appeal in time. In a similar case this Court held that claim can be accepted only if there is proof of payment of court fee which is done through remittance in treasury and if chartered accountant is found to be at fault, he should file an affidavit about his lapse. Neither any affidavit is filed from the chartered accountant confirming the claim of the petitioner, nor is there any proof that the petitioner has taken any serious step for filing appeal within time by remittance of court fee in time before treasury. In the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. W.P.C. is accordingly dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2