High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs M/S. Chiriankandath Jewellery on 12 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs M/S. Chiriankandath Jewellery on 12 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 82 of 2006()


1. STATE OF KERALA.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. CHIRIANKANDATH JEWELLERY,
                       ...       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 :12/11/2008

 O R D E R
                   H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
                 ------------------------------------------------------
                            S.T.Rev.No.82 of 2006 &
                          C.M.Appln. No.261 of 2006
                     ---------------------------------------------
                 Dated, this the 12th day of November, 2008

                                     O R D E R

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala

Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional

Bench, Palakkad in R.P.No.7/2002 dated 29.9.2002 in T.A.No.361/2001

dated 23.3.2002, is before us in this revision petition.

(2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 1063 days.

To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No261/2006. 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.82/2006 -2-

(4) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.

(5). The question of law raised in this revision petition is

left open to be agitated in an appropriate case.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE

MS