High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala Represented By vs M/S. Kadathanadu Jewellers on 26 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By vs M/S. Kadathanadu Jewellers on 26 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 55 of 2005()


1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. KADATHANADU JEWELLERS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :26/09/2008

 O R D E R
                 H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------
                           S.T.Rev.No.55 of 2005 &
                         C.M.Appln.No.112 of 2005
                    ---------------------------------------------
                Dated, this the 26th day of September, 2008

                                    O R D E R

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala

Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in

T.A.No.70/2001 dated 17.10.2002, is before us in this revision petition.

(2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 676

days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.112/2005 is filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application an

affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit except stating that the

papers were moving from table to table and person to person, no other

explanation is offered by the Revenue for the delay in filing the revision

petition.

(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.

S.T.Rev.No.55/2005 -2-

(4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.

(6). In view of the order passed in the revision petition, no

orders need be passed in I.A.No.1704/2008 and therefore it is closed.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE

MS