IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22329 of 2010 (M) -------------------------- ( TA.277/2009 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM.) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ M.S.A MEERAN, HIDES & SKINS DEALER ALUMPEEDIKA, OCHIRA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, (RESERVE) OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM PIN – 691 001.. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM – PIN 691 001. 3. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY. 4. TAHSILDAR KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK OFFICE, HARIPAD, PIN – 690 514.. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax, with respect to the assessment year 1999-2000 was completed against the petitioner, as per Exts.P1 and P2 respectively. The petitioner filed appeals before the 2nd respondent along with petitions seeking condonation of delay. During the pendency of the appeals when recovery steps were initiated, the petitioner approached this Court. In Ext.P3 judgment this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitions for condonation of delay and pass orders thereon within a time frame, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing 1/3rd of the amount. It is further directed that if delay is condoned subject to compliance of such conditions, recovery of balance amount shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals. 2. Ext.P5 is the common order passed disposing both W.P.(C) No. 22329/2010 2 the appeals. The appellate authority found that the petitions for condonation of delay could not be allowed, because the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. It is further observed that inspite of receipt of notice the representative of the petitioner has not turned up for personal hearing. It is also observed that the petitioner had not offered any convincing reasons for the inordinate delay caused in filing the appeals. 3. The petitioner took up the matter in second appeals before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. The Tribunal by Ext.P8 common order rejected both the appeals, finding that the appeals are not maintainable, in view of the fact that the first appellate authority had not considered the case on merits. The above view was taken on the basis of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Solar Cashew V. State of Kerala (2010) 28 VST 405 (Ker.). Learned counsel for the petitioner had brought to my notice another decision of this Court in Andhra Steel Corporation V. State of Kerala, (1987) W.P.(C) No. 22329/2010 3 67 STC 348 (Ker.). Contention raised was that further appeal is maintainable against an order of dismissal consequent to rejection in condoning delay. 4.In the case at hand, I am not proposing to look into the legal issue in controversy as stated above, because it is evident that the petitioner had failed to comply with the stipulations prescribed by this court as a condition precedent for condonation of delay. It cannot be said that the first appellate authority went wrong in any manner in dismissing the delay condonation applications. 5. Even though I find no apparent error with respect to the view taken by both the appellate authorities in rejecting the appeals, I am of the considered view that contentions raised against assessments could not be left confirmed without evaluating its merits. Therefore, I am of the opinion that reconsideration of the first appeals can be ordered, if the petitioner comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 judgment. 5. In the result, Exts.P5 and P8 orders issued by the W.P.(C) No. 22329/2010 4 appellate authorities are hereby set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, taking back the appeals on its file, provided the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the amount covered by Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 assessments, within one month from today. If such condition is complied with, the 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of compliance of the conditions as stipulated. Need less to say that on failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditions, the earlier orders of the appellate authorities will stand restored. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.