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 THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.116 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- T.A.NO.263/2005 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 10.08.2005) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S. PENSOL INDUSTRIES LTD., P & T QUARTERS ROAD, POOTHOLE, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.S.HARIKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------- THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPL. CIRCLE, TRICHUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.116 of 2007 & C.M.Appln.No.353 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th November, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. Petitioner-assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No.263 of 2005 dated 10th August, 2005, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a long delay of 414 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.353 of 2007 is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In support of that application, an affidavit is also filed before us. In that affidavit, it is stated as under: “3. The petitioner's accounts and all tax related matters were being dealt with by an accountant Mrs.P.R.Lakshmi, residing at House No.4, Ganapathy Apartments, Thiruvambady Road, Patturackal, Trichur. She had entrusted the file relating to Assessment Year 2000-01 to one chartered accountant Mr.Thrivikraman. Mrs.Lakshmi was monitoring the cases before the Appellate authorities on behalf of the petitioner. She left the service of the petitioner with effect from 31.12.06. While leaving the services of the petitioner, she had not informed about the pendency of the case before the Tribunal. 4. The Chartered Accountant Mr.Thrivikraman had infact received the order of the tribunal on 1-12-2006 and it was sent to the petitioner's office in the name of the Accountant S.T.Rev.116 of 2007 - 2 - Mrs.Lakshmi. The envelope in the name of Mrs.Lakshmi containing the Tribunal order was received in the office of the petitioner during January 2006. It was left unopened. After long lapse of several months, when the petitioner happened to contact the chartered accountant in connection with another case during January 2007, it was informed by the auditor that the case relating to 2000-01 before the tribunal was dismissed and the order had already been sent in the name of Mrs.Lakshmi”. (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 and the application for grant of stay are also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-