IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 18 of 2008() ------------------------ TA.175/2007 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN TA NO.175/07 ----------------------------------------------------- M/S. NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT IN TA NO.175/07 -------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- S.T. Rev.No. 18 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 Order Koshy,J. Petitioner applied for grant of exemption of tax for supply of medicines given to cancer patients free of cost as per the Government of India scheme and the value of the medicines was Rs.1,18,19,250/- and tax will come to Rs.Ten lakhs. Their claim for exemption was not accepted and they filed appeal. Appeal was also dismissed. Revision application was rejected by the Tribunal solely on the ground of delay. A preliminary objection was raised by the Government Pleader that a revision petition under the Sales Tax Act will not lie because the appeal was dismissed consequent to the dismissal of delay condonation petition and relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sivasankaran Nair v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 804) wherein their Lordships stated that mere dismissal of delay condonation petition assessees are not aggrieved persons. Prima facie, we are not agreeing with the above proposition, but, we are not referring the matter to the Full Bench as we can dispose of this petition on other grounds. Even if revision S.T.Rev.No.18/2008 2 petition is not maintainable, we can exercise the power under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that appeal was filed with delay of 278 days. Manager of the petitioner firm filed affidavit stating that the order was received on 11.9.2006 by the office and it was kept with the clerk without knowing the implications of the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that delay should be condoned and revision should be disposed of by the tribunal on merits. If the petitioner deposits one-third of the tax demanded on the turnover for which exemption is claimed on or before 15.3.2008, the impugned order will stand set aside and tribunal shall decide the matter with notice to the petitioner on merits. If they have already paid the tax or no demand is pending, the question of payment will not arise and Tribunal shall decide the matter on merit. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. The S.T. Revision is disposed of. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa S.T.Rev.No.18/2008 3 S.T.Rev.No.18/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- S.T.Rev. No. 18 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Order Dated:22nd January, 2008