K ABDUL MAJEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in both the revisions is the same person, who is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In the revisions the challenge is against the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated August 4, 1989. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was assessed on a best of judgment basis both under the State Act and under the Central Act. He preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THEre was a delay of forty-two days in filing the appeals. A medical certificate was filed along with the appeals, covering the period from December 25, 1981 to February 25, 1982. It is seen that the period from February 25, 1982 to March 15, 1982 was not covered by the medical certificate. THE appeals were dismissed by the first appellate authority. THE petitioner filed second appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. THErein it was contended by the assessee that he was discharged from hospital only on February 25, 1982. So the appeals, to be filed before the first appellate authority, could be despatched only on March 11, 1982 and the delay caused was accidental. But at a later stage the assessee himself filed a certificate before the Tribunal stating that he was under treatment from February 26, 1982 to March 8, 1982. THE said certificate is dated June 20, 1989. THE Appellate Tribunal declined to consider the said certificate. It was held that there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the appeals were dismissed. It is thereafter, the assessee has come up in revisions.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the revision petitioner. It is regrettable to note that the assessee put forward inconsistent cases at different stages. At the earliest stage he contended that he was discharged from the hospital on February 25, 1982. He put forward a plea and also filed a certificate stating that he was under treatment from February 26, 1982 to March 8, 1982. According to him, at the earliest stage the delay from February 25, 1982 to March 11, 1982, was only accidental. As per the latter certificate the delay occurred since he was under treatment. It is obvious that the assessee was advancing mutually inconsistent pleas. The plea put forward did not inspire confidence before the statutory authorities. The question as to whether there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeals within the time allowed by law, is largely one of fact. The first appellate authority, as also the second appellate authority, concurred in holding that no proper or sufficient reason existed to condone the delay in filing the appeals. As a final fact finding authority, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to enter a finding of fact as to whether the assessee (appellant) had sufficient cause in not filing the appeals within the time allowed by law. The Appellate Tribunal, on facts, held that no sufficient cause was alleged or proved. There is no error of law in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The revisions are without merit. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .