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 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 389 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- ORDER OFTHE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, PALAKKAD IN TA No. 581/2000 DATED 30.12.2000 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95) .................... REVISIONER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW) IN CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------- M/S.M.K.R.ENTERPRISES, A.V.S.ROAD, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 389 of 2006 C.M.Appln.No.898 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of December, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-I, Palakkad in T.A.No.581/2000 dated 30.12.2000. (2). In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 1919 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.898/2006 is filed. Along with the said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit it is stated that, Tribunal has disposed of two appeals T.A.No.580/2000 and T.A.No.581/2000 on 30.12.2000. It is stated that, they have forwarded the papers to the office of the Advocate General to file revision as per requisition dated 23.7.2001. The concerned Government Pleader with whom files were placed drafted the revision petition and filed the same before this court on 29.9.2004 with an application to condone the delay of 1037 days. This court condoned the delay on 9.8.2006 and posted the case for hearing. It is stated that, on 14.8.2006, when the case was taken up, it was noticed that only one S.T.Rev.No. 389/2006 -2- revision for the assessment year 1993-1994 is before the court and no revision has been filed for the year 1994-1995. (3). It is stated that, the concerned Government Pleader enquired about the matter. On verification, it was found that, the then Government Pleader, on his opinion, has chosen to file a single revision to challenge the common order quoting both the T.A.Numbers in the revision memorandum. It is stated that, the predecessor in office of the deponent was under the impression that one revision will do to assail the common order passed by the tribunal. (4). It is also stated that, on further discussion with the present Government Pleader, they have decided to file a separate revision to challenge the order in T.A.No.581/2000 as well. It is stated that delay has occurred in the above circumstances. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. (5). 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. (6). Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. S.T.Rev.No. 389/2006 -3- (7). The question of law raised in the revision petition is left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS