IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 S.T.Rev..No.237 of 2004 ---------------------- ------------------------- ORDER DATED 7.12.2000 IN T.A.71/1997 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------------ M/S.KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED FORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.237 of 2004 & C.M.Appln.No.605 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. State has filed this revision petition, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.71 of 1997 dated 7th December, 2000. (2) In filing the revision petition, there is a delay of nearly 910 days. (3) To condone the delay in filing the revision petition, the State has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with that application an affidavit is also filed. (4) A perusal of the affidavit would clearly demonstrate that the revision petitioner has filed a printed form, with some details here and there. The way in which the application and the affidavit is filed shows the casual attitude of the petitioner in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. (5) Secondly, we have also gone through the affidavit. In the said affidavit except stating that the papers were moving from table to table and person to person, no other satisfactory explanation is offered by the revenue to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. (6) 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. S.T.Rev.237/2004 - 2 - Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (7) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/DK.