IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 215 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.452/2006 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------- V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI RAM AGENCIES, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.215 of 2009 & C.M. Appl. No.1189 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Delayed revision petition is filed challenging proceedings issued under Section 29A(14) of the KGST Act confirmed by the Tribunal. The transaction led to the sale is transport of rice in bogus name. The grievance of the petitioner is that he being consignor is entitled to notice before sale of the commodity. Respondent's case is that since the commodity being rice is perishable, sale was effected without waiting for statutory period and for notice. The petitioner has grievance only if he is able to successfully challenge order under Section 29A(14). In this case admittedly the consignee is a bogus person and petitioner failed to prove anything to the contrary. In the circumstances, loss if any in the sale of the commodity is for the State 2 and we, therefore, find no merit in the revision. Consequently delay condonation petition and the S.T. revision case are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms