IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 74 of 2010() ------------------------ TA.283/2009 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- V.P.THRIMATHY, CONTRACTOR, EDAVANNA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.74 of 2010 & C.M. Appln. No.180 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision case filed by the State remains defective for the reason that service of notice on the respondent in the delay condonation petition is not complete. We find that the delay in filing the revision is only 16 days and prima facie there is a case for condonation of delay. Further, we notice that the issue raised i.e. whether the marking done on road with paint constitutes civil construction work or not, is covered by decision of this court in respondent-assessee's case for another year. In the circumstances, we feel if fresh notice is issued, the same will only lead to additional cost to the assessee for meeting cost of litigation. We, therefore, feel in the assessee's own interest revision could be disposed of following earlier judgment in assessee's own case. Accordingly 16 days' delay in filing revision is condoned and revision case is allowed vacating the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first S.T.Rev. 74/2010 2 appellate authority with direction to the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in assessee's own case for another year i.e. S.T. Rev. No.303/2008 dated 8.9.2009 (STATE OF KERALA VS. THRIMATHY CONTRACTING COMPANY reported in 2009(4) KLT 982). C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms