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 FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.222 of 2006 ----------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 28.12.2002 IN T.A.NO. 461/1998 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------[ M/S. FOAM MATTINGS (INDIA) LTD., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.S.VINODKUMAR FOR R1 THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 222 of 2006 & C.M.Appln.No.558 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A.No.461/1998 dated 28.12.2002, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 1120 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.558/2006 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application an 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. S.T.Rev.No. 222/2006 -2- (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (5). The question of law raised in this revision petition is left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS