IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 8989 of 2006(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SREEKRISHNA TIMBER WORKS, KARAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.8990/2006 ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WPC 8989/06) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.29.9.1998 FOR THE YEAR 1995-96. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL PASSED BY ADDITIONAL APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE DT.15.9.99 IN STA NOS.1224 & 1225/1999. P3 & P3(a): TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. P4&P4(a): TRUE COPIES OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDERS DISMISSING THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION AND THE APPEAL. P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN S.T. REV. NO.109/2004 DT.23.3.2006. P6: TRUE COPY OF R.R. PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), NILAMBUR. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) Nos.8989 & 8990 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.Ps. are filed challenging the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting delay condonation petitions as well as appeals. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders of the Tribunal declining to condone delay are not justified because petitioner has produced medical certificate in support of the delay condonation petitions. Government Pleader submitted that delay is over 5 months and the medical certificate produced is not convincing. Since petitioner should not suffer on account of delay in filing appeal alone, I have gone through the orders impugned in the appeals filed before the Tribunal and also the grounds of appeal. I find that the assessments are completed substantially accepting turnover returned and the additions namely, disputed turnover and tax involved, are insignificant. In the circumstances, I feel appeals filed before the Tribunal are only an afterthought and the Tribunal rightly declined to condone the delay and entertain the appeals. The W.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms