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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev.No.199 of 2005 ----------------------------------- (T.A.NO. 655/2001 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM (ORDER DATED 1.11.2002 ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.CHEERAMALIL PLASTICS (P) LTD., MULANTHURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.199 of 2005 & C.M.Appln. No.375 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A.No.655/2001 dated 1.11.2002, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 540 days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.375/2005 is filed. Along with the said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit, at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 it is stated as under: “2. The impugned order of the Tribunal was received by the petitioner on 12.5.2003. The Sales Tax Revision ought to have been filed on or before 12.08.2003. 3. After receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the original order was entrusted to our Chartered Accountant to hand over the same to an Advocate to file the Sales Tax Revision. It would appear that by an oversight on the part of the Chartered Accountant the same was not entrusted to the Advocate for filing a Sales Tax Revision case. On 04.01.2005 the petitioner received a notice from this Honourable Court enclosing a petition to condone the delay in filing an appeal against the very same order filed by the state. It was only then noticed that the revision to be preferred by the petitioner had not been filed. S.T.Rev.No.199/2005 -2- 4. There is a delay of 540 days in filing the Sales Tax Revision. The delay occurred only for the reasons stated above and not for any wilful latches on our part. If the delay in filing the revision is not condoned the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and great hardship. Hence a separate application is filed herewith.” (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. (5) I.A.No1103/2005 is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS