IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27636 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. LEO RUBBERS, PARAGON BUILDINGS, SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, ABRAHAM MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.K.S.JAYARAJAN (VELUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM-686001. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2101 0369/95-06 DT.31.8.99 ISSUED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT) SALES TAX SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.STA.1275/99 DT.21.8.2000 ISSUED BY DY. COMMISSIONER(APPEAL) KOLLAM. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL IN FORM NO.32 DT.28.8.2002 PRESENTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO.31C DT.28.8.2002 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY PRESENTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT.28.8.2002 PRESENTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.INT.P.189/2002 IN T.A. NO.283/2002 DT.31.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN T.A. NO.283/2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN T.A. 25/2003 DT.13.2.2006 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.27636 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders whereunder Tribunal has rejected delay condonation petition and consequently appeal filed. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. It is admitted that the delay in filing appeal is 665 days. The ground for condonation of delay put forward by the petitioner is that the matter was entrusted to the Chartered Accountant for filing appeal and he did not file file appeal within time which was noticed by the petitioner nearly after two years. It is difficult to believe this because in order to file appeal, court fee has to be paid to the Department through chalan and petitioner has not given any details of even court fee payment. Moreover,no affidavit is filed by the Chartered Accountant conforming to what petitioner has alleged. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly rejected the ground raised in support of delay condonation petition. The W.P. is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms