IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2487 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27636/2006 Dated 31/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S)/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------- M/S. LEO RUBBERS, PARAGON BUILDINGS, SREENIVAS IYER ROAD, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER ABRAHAM MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.GIRI, J. =========================== W.A.No.2487 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Koshy, Ag.CJ. This appeal is filed as the learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. There is a delay of 665 days in filing the appeal. According to the appellant, his authorised representative informed to him that order was passed against him. Appellant requested the chartered accountant to file an appeal. But it was not filed. That is the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Tribunal was not convinced by the reasons stated in the affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Vasu and Company v. State of Kerala ((2001) 124 (vol.) STC 124) and urged us to take a liberal view. If he has entrusted the chartered accountant to file an appeal, he should have asked why the appeal is not send for signature. It is the case of the appellant that from the chartered accountant's office the file was misplaced and it was traced out later. W.A.No.2487 of 2008 2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this appeal should have been heard on merit after condoning delay on condition, provided, there is no pending dispute on the disputed tax involved in the appeal. Hence, interim orders are set aside on condition that the appellant shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the Revenue within one month from today and on payment of pending tax demanded if any, on the disputed question in the appeal within one month from today. If these two conditions are complied with within one month, the appeal shall be heard on merit and Exts.P6 and P7 shall stand set aside. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.GIRI, JUDGE bkn/-