IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 S.T.Rev.No.29 of 2005 -------------------------------------------- T.A.NO.583/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, PALAKKAD - ORDER DATED 13.11.2000. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT: APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- SRI. C.NATARAJAN, SREEMATHY ENTERPRISES, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD.. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.29 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.No.99 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-I, Palakkad in T.A.No.583 of 2000 dated 13.11.2000, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 1340 days . To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.99 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. (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. (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/-