IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4329 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.D.THOMAS, RED LAND TEA FACTORY, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4329 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd February , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the dismissal of Ext.P3 (a) petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which in turn has led to the dismissal of the appeal itself. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P4 order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the petition for condonation of delay, is very much a 'speaking order' and does not call for any interference. It was pursuant to the dismissal of Ext.P4 petition, that the impugned order was passed dismissing the appeal as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the contents of the impugned order submits that the factum of filing a petition supported with an affidavit and also production of the relevant medical certificate are not under dispute and further that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority holding that the medical certificate is not genuine, is per se wrong and unsustainable; more so, when the credibility of the medical certificate is not tested by calling for further materials or W.P.(C) No. 4329 OF 2010 2 by examining the doctor. 4. The way in which a petition to condone delay has to be appreciated by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in 1998(7) SCC 123 (N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy), holding that the proper course to be adopted is to see whether the attempt being pursued by the party concerned is with a conscious intent to protract things, so as to cause prejudice to the other side, and if not, it is better to have the matter to be heard on merits. 5. Viewed in the light of the above observations, the attempt made by the petitioner could never be regarded as an attempt to protract things so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue, as the delay, if any, can only be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also produced the original of 'F' forms for perusal of this Court in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the delay of 434 days in filing the appeal can be condoned on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. Two lakhs W.P.(C) No. 4329 OF 2010 3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; on which event, the delay will stand condoned. 7. On satisfying the above requirement, the third respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner , which exercise shall be pursued and finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The amount to be deposited by the petitioner as above, will be subject to the orders to be passed by the third respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk