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 MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev.No. 391 of 2004 ------------------------------------- (T.A.NO. 218/1999 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ORDER DATED 27.3.2002) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-1991 ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S.NOVELTY EXPORT COMPANY, EXPORTS OF HOOKA, EAST ROAD, KOYILANDY. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.391 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.1047 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A.No. 218/1999 dated 27th March, 2002 is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 561 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.1047/2004 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 S.T.Rev.No. 391/2004 -2- requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (5). In view of the order passed in the revision petition no order need be passed in I.A.No.1569/2008 and therefore it is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS