IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2007 / 13TH ASHADHA 1929 WA.No. 1609 of 2007 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3384/2007 Dated 31/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, P.O.CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, (WC & LT), KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1609 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 4th day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3384 of 2007 dated 31st January, 2007. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge while confirming the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.324 to 328 of 2005, has rejected the writ petition. 2. Brief facts are; the assessing authority has completed the assessment for assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act for short). The revisional authority being of the opinion that the orders of assessment so passed are not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue had initiated proceedings under Section 35 of the Act and notice of the said proceedings had been issued to the appellant. In fact, he had participated in the proceedings and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order revising the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority for assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98. The revisional authority after setting aside the orders of assessment so passed has directed the assessing authority to redo the assessment in accordance with law. 3. After such remand the assessing authority after issuing a notice to the appellant has passed fresh orders of assessment for assessment years W.A.No.1609/2007 2 1993-94 to 1997-98. Those orders are also served on the appellant. It is only thereafter that the appellant had filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the revisional authority in exercise of its powers under Section 35 of the Act. Along with the appeals the appellant had also filed application for condonation of delay. 4. The Tribunal while rejecting the application for condonation of delay has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had participated when the proceedings under Section 35 of the Act were initiated by the revisional authority and further has taken note of the fact that the orders passed under Section 35 of the Act had been served on the assessee. The Tribunal had also taken into consideration that after the disposal of the revision petition, the assessing authority had issued notice to the appellant before completing the assessment for assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98. A perusal of the order would clearly demonstrate that the appellant was fully aware of the orders passed by the revisional authority in exercise of its powers under Section 35 of the Act. If for any reason he was aggrieved by the said order he should have filed an appropriate appeal within the prescribed time. This cannot be done after about four and a half years of the order passed under the Act. Delay is fatal to the proceedings. A person who had slept over his rights is not entitled to any relief. Further, the explanation offered for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is wholly unsatisfactory. Keeping all these aspects in view, the W.A.No.1609/2007 3 learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE vns/DK