IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24541 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. JET SPEED AUDIO LTD., NEAR MANAVATTI SILKS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI.MONCY V. THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.TOMSON T.EMMAUEL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 24541 OF 2008 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st September, 2008 JUDGMENT Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the sale of Audio Cassettes and CD. Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 Orders and seeks a direction to the second respondent to pass orders in T.A. No.80/08 afresh and in the meantime direct respondents 1 and 3 not to take any recovery proceedings. Ext.P4 is the order passed on an application filed by petitioner to condone the delay of 913 days in filing the Second Appeal. The Tribunal rejected the application finding that there is no ground to condone delay. Consequently, Ext.P5 order came to be passed dismissing the Appeal. Petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5. The reason stated in Ext.P4 essentially is that the appellant came to know of the decision only on 24.3.2008 when the tax consultant told about it. The tax practitioner has also filed an Affidavit on the said lines. The Tribunal has, however, WPC.24541/08 V 2 proceeded to take the view that the petitioner has taken the matter light-heartedly and has not taken earnest steps in prosecuting the matter. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner also drew my attention to Ext.P2 Judgment. In Ext.P2 Judgment, this Court had directed the Tribunal to take up the Appeal out of turn and dispose of the same within three months from the date of making the payment. Therefore, counsel for petitioner would contend that there was a direction binding on the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. I find that the petitioner is justified in impugning Exts.P4 and P5. Apart from the fact that I would think that the petitioner has made out a ground for the delay being condoned, I think, in the facts of this case, there is a positive direction by this Court in Ext.P2 Judgment to consider the matter apparently without reference to delay. Having regard to the totality of the facts present in this case, I would think that some condition should be imposed on the petitioner for consideration of the Appeal on merits. WPC.24541/08 V 3 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as follows: Exts.P4 and P5 will stand quashed on condition that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/= (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) within a period of two weeks from today towards the demand made under the order of the assessing authority. Upon the amount being deposited, the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal will be taken up and decided on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //True copy// PS to Judge