IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1609 of 2007()
1. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, (WC & LT),
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/07/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1609 of 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.3384 of 2007 dated 31st January, 2007. By the impugned
order, the learned Single Judge while confirming the order passed by the Sales
Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.324 to 328 of 2005, has rejected the writ
petition.
2. Brief facts are; the assessing authority has completed the
assessment for assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 under the provisions of
the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act for short). The revisional authority
being of the opinion that the orders of assessment so passed are not only
erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue had initiated
proceedings under Section 35 of the Act and notice of the said proceedings
had been issued to the appellant. In fact, he had participated in the
proceedings and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order
revising the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority for
assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98. The revisional authority after setting
aside the orders of assessment so passed has directed the assessing authority
to redo the assessment in accordance with law.
3. After such remand the assessing authority after issuing a notice to
the appellant has passed fresh orders of assessment for assessment years
W.A.No.1609/2007
2
1993-94 to 1997-98. Those orders are also served on the appellant. It is only
thereafter that the appellant had filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate
Tribunal questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the
revisional authority in exercise of its powers under Section 35 of the Act. Along
with the appeals the appellant had also filed application for condonation of
delay.
4. The Tribunal while rejecting the application for condonation of delay
has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had participated when
the proceedings under Section 35 of the Act were initiated by the revisional
authority and further has taken note of the fact that the orders passed under
Section 35 of the Act had been served on the assessee. The Tribunal had
also taken into consideration that after the disposal of the revision petition, the
assessing authority had issued notice to the appellant before completing the
assessment for assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98. A perusal of the order
would clearly demonstrate that the appellant was fully aware of the orders
passed by the revisional authority in exercise of its powers under Section 35 of
the Act. If for any reason he was aggrieved by the said order he should have
filed an appropriate appeal within the prescribed time. This cannot be done
after about four and a half years of the order passed under the Act. Delay is
fatal to the proceedings. A person who had slept over his rights is not entitled
to any relief. Further, the explanation offered for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal is wholly unsatisfactory. Keeping all these aspects in view, the
W.A.No.1609/2007
3
learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. We
do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which
would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be
rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
vns/DK