IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.287 of 2005 ------------------------------------ (T.A.NO.232/2002 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM (ORDER DATED 31.12.2002 ) .................... REVISION PETIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- -------------------------------------------------------- SRI.K.C. THANKAPPAN NADAR, NYLON FISH KNITTED FABRICS, MARKET WARD, ALAPPUZHA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.287 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.No.525 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A.No. 232/2002 dated 31.12.2002 , is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 581 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No 525/2005 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit except stating that the papers were moving from table to table and person to person, no other explanation is offered by the Revenue for the delay in filing the revision petition. (3) The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. S.T.Rev.No.287/2005 -2- (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (5). In view of the order passed in the revision petition, all pending interim applications are closed. (6). The question of law raised in this revision petition is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate matter. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS