Smt. Shantha Lakshmi Jayaraam @ vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 706 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

           WRIT APPEAL No.620/2020 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHANTHA LAKSHMI JAYARAAM @
SMT. SAANTHA LAKSHMI JAYARAAM
W/O. V.N. JAYARAAM
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.71/18 SAMALA MAREPPA COMPOUND,
S.G. JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR,
BELLARY - 583 103.                            ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MOHAMMED
MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
       FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
       TAXES IN KARNATAKA,
       "VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA,
       GANDHINAGAR,
       BANGALORE - 560 009.

3.     COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
       (ENFORCEMENT - 45)
       SOUTH ZONE,
       BANGALORE - 560 047.               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K. HEMA KUMAR,           ADDITIONAL   GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
                                   -2-




      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THAT PART OF THE
IMPUGNED     ORDER      DATED      04.07.2019      PASSED    BY   THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.Nos.27983-27987/2019 (T-
RES) AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR IN W.P.No.27983/2019 (T-RES).


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                           JUDGMENT

There is a delay of 233 days in filing the appeal.

2. We have heard Sri Kiran S.Javali, learned

counsel for the appellant and learned Additional

Government Advocate for the respondents, who has

appeared on advance notice.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the impugned order was passed on 04/07/2019 and

the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal has occurred due

to bona fide and unintentional reasons, which are stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the application

(I.A.No.1/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing this

appeal. He submitted that the appellant was hospitalized

and therefore, was unable to meet her advocate and she

could not travel from Ballary to Bengaluru to file the

appeal. That the appeal was ultimately filed on

15/12/2020. He submitted that the delay may be

condoned as the appellant has a good case on merits.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate, who appeared on advance notice submitted that

learned single Judge has granted adequate relief to the

appellant. That there is no merit in the appeal. The

reason for such a long delay of 233 days in filing the

appeal has not been explained. That the nature of the

disease and as to why she was unable to file the appeal in

time has not been adverted to. That a bald affidavit has

been filed bereft of any details and reasons explaining the

delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the application

seeking condonation of delay of 233 days in filing the

appeal may be dismissed and consequently, the appeal

may also be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the respective parties and also perused the

impugned order and the application seeking condonation of

delay. It is noted that the impugned order was passed on

04/07/2019 and the appeal has been filed only on

15/12/2020.

6. We have perused the affidavit filed in support

of the application seeking condonation of delay. We find

that the said affidavit is bereft of any details and the

reasons for such a long delay of 233 days have not been

explained. In view of there being no sufficient cause

shown for condoning the delay of 233 days in filing the

appeal, I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed.

7. Further, we have also considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the respective

parties as against the impugned order. We find that the

learned single Judge has granted necessary relief to the

appellant by relegating the appellant herein to the

appellate authority so as to avail the statutory appellate

remedy to consider the rectification of application insofar

as 'C' forms are concerned and also to dispose of the

appeal in accordance with law. Further, learned single

Judge has also observed that the issue regarding limitation

in filing the appeal shall not be raised and further learned

single Judge has held that there shall be no insistence on

the pre-deposit relating to the turnover of

Rs.2,72,81,736/- under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal also.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, I.A.Nos.1/2020 and 2/2020 stand

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE S*