IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2007 / 5TH SRAVANA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 437 of 2004 --------------------------------- ORDER DATED 15.3.2003 IN TA.177/2002 OF KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH-II ,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- SHRI.K.P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, FERTILIZER, PLANT PROTECTION CHEMICALS, GREEN FIELD CHEMICALS, ALUVA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 27/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.437 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.1139 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2007 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. State being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-II, Ernakulam in T.A.No.177 of 2002 dated 15.3.2003 is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 262 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.1139 of 2004 is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application a printed 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. (4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.T.Sankaran Judge vns/-