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 TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.418 of 2004 ------------------------------------ (T.A.NO. 220/1999 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ORDER DATED 27.3.2002 ) ------------- REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- -------------------------------------------------------- M/S.NOVELTY EXPORT COMPANY, EXPORTS OF HOOKA, EAST ROAD, KOYILANDY. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.418 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.1088 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A.No. 220/1999 dated 27.3.2002, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 569 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.1088/2004 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. (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. S.T.Rev.No.418/2004 -2- (5). In view of the order passed in the revision petition, no order need be passed in I.A.No.1571/2008, and, therefore, it is closed. (6). The question of law raised in this revision petition is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate matter. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS