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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev.No.63 OF 2006 ----------------------------------- (T.A.NO. 694/2003 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 5.3.2004 ) .................... 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. MANGALY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, BOC COLLEGE BYE PASS ROAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW. SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.63 of 2006 & C.M.Appln. No.202 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th 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, Palakkad in T.A.No.694/2003 dated 5.3.2004, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 582 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.202/2006 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.63/2006 -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