IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 47 of 2009 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.34894/2001 ............................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE OP ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (HQ), MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN THE O.P ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A.P.KASSIM, ALACKAL HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. A.ABDUL RAZAK, ALACKAL HOUSE, COMPANY PADY, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.47 of 2009 and C.M.Appl.No.18 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . C.M.Appl.No.18 of 2009 is a petition to condone the delay of 419 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the amount involved in this matter is only around Rs.20,000/=. Appeal relates to assessment orders for the years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The question referred to was whether private properties of Directors can be proceeded against for the liability of a Limited Company under Revenue Recovery Act, for the period prior to the introduction of section 26(C) of the KGST Act. Learned Judge took the view that it cannot be taken. In the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation petition it is stated that Government Pleader advised that there is no scope for filing a writ appeal. Subsequently when another learned Judge allowed the writ petition following the same, it was decided to file an appeal. It is also stated that another learned Judge took a different view. Subsequent decision by another Judge on the subject is not a ground for condoning the long delay. It is also stated that the decision to file appeal was taken and writ appeal was prepared on 28.11.2008. The affidavit to the petition to condone W.A.No.47 of 2009 2 delay was prepared on 5.12.2008. It was filed only in January, 2009. We are of the view that no grounds are made out to condone the long delay in filing the appeal. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the legal points raised in the appeal. The delay condonation petition is dismissed as no satisfactory grounds are stated to condone the long delay. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE tks