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 MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.153 of 2005 --------------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 13-7-2001 IN T.A.No.283/2000 OF KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-1997). .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S.HOTEL KAVERI, BAR ATTACHED HOTEL, MUKKADA, KUNDARA. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ----------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.153 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.293 of 2005 & 669 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 4th day of August, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.283 of 2000 dated 13th July, 2001, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition, there is a delay of 1151 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.293 of 2005 is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application, a printed 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. Therefore, we had orally directed the petitioner to file a proper affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit is filed, along with an application for condonation of delay (C.M.Appln.No.669 of 2008). (3) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the fresh affidavit filed along with C.M.Appln.No.669 of 2008, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly S.T.Rev.153/2005 - 2 - unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-