IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5694 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. KAIRALI TEA PLANTATIONS (P) LTD., THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY M.K. SAMUEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER -III, THIRUVALLA 2. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5694 OF 2009 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Exts.P7 and P8 orders. A direction also is sought to dispose of Ext.P3 Appeal. Ext.P7 is the order passed rejecting the application for condoning the delay of 1346 days. Ext.P8 is the consequential order dismissing the Appeal. According to petitioner, the delay occurred only because it was not brought to the notice of the Authority. More importantly, it is pointed out that having regard to Ext.P6 Judgment which has become final, the case of the petitioner is meritorious and at least, partial relief will be obtained, if the Appeal is considered on merits, and it is also pointed out that the principle is that a meritorious case may not be dismissed only on the ground of delay. Learned Government Pleader points out that the delay was not properly explained. An opportunity was given to produce documents. Since it is pointed out that Ext.P6 has become final, I would think that the WPC.5694/09 F 2 petitioner must be given an opportunity to have the case urged on merits. But, it cannot be an unconditional order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P7 and P8, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.8,80,000/= (Rupees Eight Lakhs & Eighty Thousand) towards the assessment in question and a further sum of Rs.20,000/=(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as costs to be paid to the first respondent. This is to be done within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not deposit the amounts as aforesaid, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. On the other hand, if the amounts are deposited, the Appeal filed by the petitioner will be taken up and considered on merits, provided he petitioner cures all defects in the meantime. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge