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 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No.43 of 2006 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM DATED 19.2.2004 IN TA.1183/2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 (PROVISIONAL 6/2003) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- M/S. SHINE PETROLEUM PRIVATE LTD. PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.43 of 2006 & C.M.Appln.No.150 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the Ist day of December, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-I, Ernakulam in T.A.No.1183/2003 dated 19.2.2004, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 584 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.150/2006 is filed. Along with the said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit it is stated that, the order of the Tribunal was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 20.4.2004. It is also stated that, on 20.4.2004 itself the order of the Tribunal along with connected files were distributed in the office of the Joint Commissioner for examining the scope for filing Tax Revision. It is stated that, thereafter, the order along with the suggestions were forwarded to the Secretary, Taxes suggesting to file Sales Tax Revision. The same was again received in the office of the Joint Commissioner on 23.3.2005 and the same was sent to the office of the Advocate General for preparing Revision Petition. It is also stated that, after preparation of the S.T.Rev.No.43/2006 -2- revision the same was signed on 17.1.2006 and entrusted to the office of the Advocate General for filing Sales Tax Revision. (3). It is further stated in the affidavit that, delay was caused on account of administrative reasons. It is stated that the delay is not wilful. (4) 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. (5) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (6) The questions of law raised in this revision petition is left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS