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 MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev.No. 316 of 2004 -------------------------------------- T.A.NO. 1036/1999 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-II, ERNAKULAM (ORDER DATED 08.08.2001) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- K.A.UMMERKUTTY, K.K.ANTHREW & SONS JWELLERY, MUVATTUPUZHA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.316 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.854 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-II, Ernakulam in T.A.No.1036/1999 dated 8.8.2001. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 622 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.854/2004 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit except stating that the papers were moving from table to table and person to person, no other explanation is offered by the Revenue for the delay in filing the revision petition. (3) The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. S.T.Rev.No.316/2004 -2- (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (5). In view of the orders passed in the revision petition, no orders need be passed in I.A.Nos.2584/2006 & 2585/2006 and therefore these applications are closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS