IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 418 of 2006()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.THE PUNJAB AROMATICS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.418 of 2006 &
C.M.Appln.No. 946 of 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of November, 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.266/2004
dated 30.9.2005, is before us in this revision petition.
(2) In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 260 days.
To condone the said delay, C.M.Appln.No.946/2006 is filed. Along with the
said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit it is stated
that, the order of the Tribunal was received in the office of the Joint
Commissioner (Law) on 28.11.2005 and, that, after obtaining the proposal
from the Commissionerate, Thiruvananthapuram the files were sent to the
office of the Advocate General on 19.8.2006 for preparing the revision
petition and ascertaining the opinion from the concerned Government
Pleader. It is stated that, the files were placed before the concerned
Government Pleader on 23.8.2006. It is also stated that after preparation of
the revision the same was signed on 4.11.2006 and entrusted to the office of
the Advocate General for filing on the same day itself.
(3). It is further stated in the affidavit that, delay was caused on
S.T.Rev.No.418/2006 -2-
account of administrative reasons as well as by reason of heavy work
load in the office of the Advocate General and concerned Government
Pleader. It is also stated that some delay was caused in getting the
assessment records from the concerned assessing authority. It is also
stated that the delay is not wilful.
(4) 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.
(5) Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
(6) 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