IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4455 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. SUD-CHEMIE INDIA PVT.LTD. BINANIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 502 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT (FINANCE) & COMPANY SECRETARY E.V.JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERECIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4455 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order of assessment was impugned by the petitioner before the appellate authority and on its rejection by Ext.P2, a further appeal was filed before the third respondent Tribunal and Ext.P5 is the memorandum of appeal. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. Along with application for condonation, he had filed Ext.P3 affidavit sworn by the counsel for the petitioner explaining that the delay had occurred on account of the mistake committed by him. 2. The delay petition was considered by the third respondent Tribunal and by Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal rejected the application. Following Ext.P6, the appeal was also rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is challenging Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 this writ petition has been filed. 3. On going through Ext.P6, I notice that the Tribunal had held that the reason stated for condoning delay of two years WPC 4455/2008 2 and nine months was not satisfactory to it. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner was not vigilant in following up the matter when the first appellate authority have rejected the appeal by Ext.P2 order. 4. In Ext.P3 affidavit filed by by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is stated that on receipt of Ext.P2 appellate order, though he had informed the matter to the petitioner, due to a mistake in his office, copy of the order was not sent to the petitioner. It is only on account of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner had informed the contents of Ext.P2 order to the petitioner, that the third respondent found latches on the part of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that copy of the order was misplaced in the office of the counsel and was traced out only on 18.9.2007, and it is thereafter that the appeal was filed. Therefore, from the affidavit of the counsel it is evident that it was on account of a mistake committed by the counsel, that the delay has occurred. It is settled law that for the mistake or default of a counsel, litigants should not be made to suffer. 5. In this case, it is the bonafide mistake committed by the counsel for the petitioner which is primarily responsible for WPC 4455/2008 3 the delay and that in view of the matter, I am not in a position to endorse view of the Tribunal and therefore Ext.P6 will stand quashed. Consequently, Ext.P7 rejecting the appeal also will stand quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of quashing Exts.P6 and P7 and directing that Ext.P5 appeal will be considered by the third respondent Tribunal on merits. The writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl