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 FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.567 of 2004 ------------- ------------------------- T.A.613/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 17.03.2001) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN & BROS, ARECANUT & TOBACO MERCHANT, BIG BAZAR, PALAKKAD. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. --------------------------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.567 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.1361 of 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-I, Palakkad in T.A.No.613 of 2000 dated 17.03.2001, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 933 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.1361 of 2000 is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Notice was ordered to be served on the respondent in the delay application as early as on 26.7.2006. The Revenue has not paid the process fee to issue notice to the respondent till date. (3) It is apropos to mention here, that, along with the application to condone the delay in filing the revision, a stereo-typed 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. (4) On going through the aforesaid affidavit and considering the inaction on the part of the Revenue to pay process fee, we are of the opinion that the Revenue may not be interested in the matter. S.T.Rev.No.567 of 2004 - 2 - (5) In the above view of the matter, the application to condone the delay in filing the revision petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (6) Consequently, the Sales Tax Revision is also rejected. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge