IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 349 of 2003 --------------------------------- TA.227/2000 of COMMR.KERALA AGR.IT & STAT,TVM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------------- M/S.GEOSONS ENGINEERING CO., ENGINEERING GOODS, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW FOR RESPONDENT THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appl.No.646 OF 2003 in S.T.Rev.No.349 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July 2008 ORDER H.L.DATTU, C.J. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.227 of 2000 dated 21.8.2001. 2. There is a delay of 667 days in filing the revision petition. Therefore, to condone the delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. 3. In the affidavit filed along with the application, the applicants/appellants have sought as under: “The copy of the order of the Appellate Authority was received on 23.10.2001. As soon as the copy was received the matter was taken up before the office of the Advocate General for filing revision. The concerned Government Pleader discussed the matter with the Deputy Commissioner (Law). After discussion the Revision Petition was filed on 21.8.2003. There is a delay of 667 days in filing the Revision. The delay is not willful, but only due to administrative reasons. For the above said reasons, it is humbly submitted that this Honourable Court be pleased to condone the delay of 667 days in filing the Revision.” 4. A perusal of the explanation offered by the applicant would only show that the files were moving from table to table and from person to person. Apart from saying this there is no other explanation to condone the C.M.Appl.No.646 OF 2003 in S.T.Rev.No.349 OF 2003 :: 2 :: delay in filing this application. The explanation offered is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the prayer made in the application requires to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 5. Consequently, the revision petition also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes/dk.