High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs G.Murugan on 19 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs G.Murugan on 19 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST Rev No. 256 of 2003()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. G.MURUGAN, MURUGA JEWELLERY, ALAPPUZHA.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :19/11/2007

 O R D E R
                             H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            S.T.Rev.No.256 of 2003 & C.M.Appln.No.486 of 2003
             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2007

                                              ORDER

H.L.Dattu,C.J.

State being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales

Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A.No.523 of 1995 dated

24.5.2001 is before us in this revision petition.

(2) In filing the revision petition there is an inordinate delay of 592

days. To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.486 of 2003 is filed under

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the said application a stereotyped

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.

(4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice

K.M.Joseph
Judge
vku/-