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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.111 of 2005 --------------------------------------- T.A.NO.685/2002 OF KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 31ST MARCH, 2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------------- K.C.JOSE, JANATHA JEWELLERY, VADAKKANCHERRY. ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.111 of 2005 & C.M.Appln. No.213 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No.685/2002 dated 31.3.2003, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 369 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.213/2005 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. 111/2005 -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 left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS