IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36666 of 2007(M)
1. B.SREEKALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 36666 OF 2007 M
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging
Ext.P4 and seeking a direction to dispose of T.A.No.154/2007 on
merit and to reconsider Ext.P3. Case of the petitioner in brief is as
follows. Petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Assistant
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Special Circle, Kollam. The petitioner
was assessed for the assessment year 1996-97 in a sum of
Rs.8,96,00,390/- and the liability to tax was Rs.62,71,027/-.
Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The order was
communicated to the petitioner on 13.8.2002. According to the
petitioner, she was undergoing prolonged medical treatment and
she could not file second appeal before the Tribunal in time. She
filed second appeal on 29.6.2007 as Ext.P1 along with Ext.P2
application for condonation of delay. Ext.P3 is a copy of the
medical certificate submitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal.
However, Ext.P4 order was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the
application for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, in
WPC.36666/07
: 2 :
the medical certificate it was stated that she was ailing from
Arthritis and Diabetes and she was under treatment from 3.5.2002.
She was totally in an indisposable condition and practically
bedridden. It is stated that the petitioner can undergo treatment
by strictly following the directions of the doctor. It is the case of
the petitioner that during 1996-97, there was own processing of
raw cashew nut and she entered into an agreement with Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. for processing of
raw cashew nut supplied by them on coolie basis, which was
intimated to the assessing authority. The petitioner has also
produced the agreement between the petitioner and the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. as Ext.P8.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader would submit
that a perusal of the medical certificate and Ext.P4 order would
show that there is no illegality committed by the Appellate
Tribunal. It is true that the reason given in the affidavit filed by the
petitioner was found unacceptable. Having regard to the huge
amount fixed on the petitioner and the totality of facts, I think that
WPC.36666/07
: 3 :
the petitioner must be given an opportunity to have the appeal
considered on merits. But, learned Government Pleader points
out that even if this Court set aside Ext.P4, it should be on terms.
He also pointed out that the appeal was filed after five years and
no amount is paid pursuant to the order and therefore there must
be some condition directing payment of portion of the amount at
least.
3. Having considered all the facts, writ petition is
disposed of as follows. Ext.P4 will stand set aside on condition
that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.4 lakhs within a period of
three weeks from today. If the petitioner remits the amount, the
appeal will be dealt with in accordance with law. It is open to the
petitioner to seek interim relief against recovery in the appeal also.
If the petitioner does not remit the amount of Rs.4 lakhs within
three weeks from today, Ext.P4 shall stand.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks