IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 226 of 2007()
1. PRINCE ELECTRICALS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :22/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------------------
C.M.APPL.NO. 692 OF 2007
&
S.T.REV. NO. 226 OF 2007
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd November, 2007
ORDER
H.L. DATTU, CJ.
The assessee being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No.625/03 dated 25.5.2004, has filed the present
Sales Tax Revision Case. In filing the Revision Case, there is a delay of
nearly 986 days. To condone the delay in filing the Revision Case, the
petitioner has filed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. In the Affidavit filed along with the Application, at paragraph (3), the
applicant has stated as follows:
“3. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order
under challenge on 25.5.2004. The order so passed was
served on the Tax Practitioner, Sri.T.T. Dani, who appear on
my behalf before the tribunal however, he did not furnish the
details of the order to me apart from stating that the addition
has been deleted. As my wife is a person who is constantly
being troubled of acute high pressure, I could not approach
the tax practitioner to collect the order immediately. In the
meanwhile, I met with a motor vehicles accident and
happened to be hospitalised for long and I was not in a
position to travel for a long period. While so, I received an
intimation from the revenue recovery notice issued by the
Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Thrissur intimating
payment of huge amount as arrears of tax, the original
demand which was under order of stay by demanding the
balance amount of tax to be paid. I contacted my counsel at
STRV 226/07 2
Ernakulam regarding the stage of the original petition filed as
No.8355 of 2003 and I was informed that the same has been
dismissed for default. I made arrangements for filing a MJC
against the order dismissing the original petition for default. In
that process I have also collected the revised assessment
order issued by the Sales Tax Officer and the Tribunal order
from the Tax Practitioner in which I came to know that the
order to add 20% gross profit has been sustained by the
Tribunal as well. The MJC was allowed and it has been
directed to issue revised demand notice as per the modified
order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
3. The reason stated by the petitioner is that, his wife was suffering
from Blood Pressure and further he had met with an accident and, therefore,
he could not get in touch with his Tax Practitioner and his lawyer and there is
a delay of 1081 days in filing the Revision Case. In support of his
contentions, petitioner has not produced any material before us. Merely
because his wife was suffering from Blood Pressure, it cannot be said that the
petitioner was prevented from approaching the Tax Practitioner or his lawyer.
4. Nextly, the petitioner has stated that he had met with a motor
vehicle accident and, therefore, he was not in a position to get in touch with
either the Tax Practitioner or the lawyer. Petitioner has not produced any
material before us, to suggest, that he was immobilised from the date of
accident which prevented him from getting in touch with his lawyer. In the
absence of those materials, in our opinion, the explanation offered by the
petitioner in approaching this Court belatedly, cannot be condoned.
Therefore, the prayer made in the Application for condonation of delay,
requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Consequently, the ST Rev. Case
STRV 226/07 3
also is dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
kbk.