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 FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 S.T.Rev.No. 55 of 2005 ------------------------------------ T.A.NO. 70/2001 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ORDER DATED 17.10.2002) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-1995) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/:APPELLANT/REVENUE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.KADATHANAD JEWELLERS, CONVENT ROAD, VADAKARA. BY ADV.SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.55 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.No.112 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of September, 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, Kozhikode in T.A.No.70/2001 dated 17.10.2002, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 676 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.112/2005 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.55/2005 -2- (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (6). In view of the order passed in the revision petition, no orders need be passed in I.A.No.1704/2008 and therefore it is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS