VASU AND CO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these tax revision cases are filed against the common order passed by the Tribunal. The assessee is the petitioner. The assessee filed six appeals, T. A. Nos. 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 and 176 of 2000 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench II, Ernakulam. The appeals were filed out of time. There was a delay of 1,051 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition to condone the delay and consequently, the appeals were dismissed. It is against the above decision that the present revisions have been filed.

(2.) In the affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the revision petitioner stated that he was assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88. According to him, he had entrusted to one C. Neelakandan Kartha, Advocate, to file appeals against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and he was under the impression that the latter had filed the appeals. When revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the Revenue Recovery Authorities, he requested to move stay petitions before the Tribunal. But the Advocate was not prepared to file stay petitions. Therefore, the petitioner entrusted the papers to another Advocate. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing O. P. No. 15178 of 1999 and stay was granted by this Court till the disposal of the Original Petition. Subsequently, he received hearing notice from the Tribunal. Then he came to understand that the appeals were not filed by Neelakandan Kartha. Hence, appeals were filed by him. Thus, the delay was attributed. The Tribunal was of the view that the matter has been taken light heartedly by the assessee. The averments in the affidavit have not been substantiated with proper evidence. Hence, the petition to condone the delay was dismissed. It is against the above order that the present revisions are filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. N. Muraleedharan Nair submitted that though the petitioner had got books of accounts in respect of the transactions, he could not produce the same at the appropriate time. The petitioner is not having any business at present and is placed in great financial difficulties. There was no suppression or omission in the books of accounts maintained and whatever tax due was also paid at the appropriate time. According to him, now as per the orders, the assessee has to pay large arrears and the assessee has a good case on merits. He further submitted that in the matter of condoning delay, the court should not be very rigid and submitted that in matters like taxation, it will be always appropriate to give an opportunity to argue the case on merits.