Kerala High Court

D.S.Pradeep vs The Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) on 9 April, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

                                    1



                                                  2025:KER:30946
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

     WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                      WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

PETITIONER :

             D.S.PRADEEP
             AGED 50 YEARS
             MRIDULA SADANAM (GOKULAM),
             NJEKKADU, VADASSERIKONAM P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.R.RAJESH
             SMT.E.S.SANDHYA

RESPONDENTS :

      1      THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)
             COMMERICAL TAXES,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2      THE TAHSILDAR
             VARKALA TALUK, VARKALA,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 141.

      3      THE SALES TAX OFFICER
             ATTINGAL,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 101.

             BY SMT.DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    09.04.2025,   THE   COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

                                   2



                                                         2025:KER:30946
                    BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                     W.P.(C).No.32817 of 2014
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                 Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges an order dated 07.08.2014 dismissing his

application for condonation of delay of 2446 days in filing STA

Nos.64/2011, 65/2011, 66/2011, 67/2011 and 68/2011.

2. Petitioner was conducting a business in furniture under the

name and style V.V.K. Industries which was subsequently stopped. In

the meantime, orders of assessment of sales tax under the Kerala

General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'KGST Act') were issued and

penalty was also imposed under Section 45A of the said Act for the

assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.

Though the order of penalty dated 25.04.2005 was received by the

petitioner on 02.05.2005, appeals were preferred only on 07.02.2012

thereby incurring a delay of 2446 days days.

3. In justification of the delay, petitioner stated that he was

suffering from various illnesses and requested for condoning the delay.

However, by the impugned order, the appellate authority came to the

conclusion that there was nothing to show that there was no valid reason

to condone the delay and the appellant had failed to give any cogent WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946 reasons sufficient to condone the long delay. The applications for

condonation of delay was thus dismissed. This writ petition is preferred

against the said order dated 07.08.2014.

4. According to the petitioner, the order dismissing the delay

petitions and the appeals is against the principles of natural justice and

has rendered manifest injustice. It is also pleaded that the impugned

order is irregular and the first respondent has exceeded the bounds of his

jurisdiction and that the appellate authority went wrong in failing to

condone the delay. The nature of illnesses according to the petitioner

clearly indicated that the petitioner was not in a position to do his normal

routine as an individual. Petitioner also claimed that the application for

condonation of delay ought to have been considered liberally.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent

pointing out that petitioner had, during the period of delay, filed

O.S.No.71 of 2007 before the Munsiff's Court, Varkala and also filed W.P.

he was in a fit condition to file statutory appeals. Apart from the above,

it was pointed out that the petitioner was attempting to evade the

proceedings all along and hence the assessment orders were passed ex-

parte and the said order was served in 2005 and proceedings had even

been initiated for revenue recovery.

WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946

6. The contentions of the petitioner as well as that of the

respondents are considered.

7. Petitioner filed the appeals with a delay of 2446 days which

literally runs into more than 6 ½ years. The only explanation stated by

the petitioner is that he was medically unfit to file an appeal. In

justification of the said claim, he produced two medical certificates from

an Ayurveda Doctor stating that he was under treatment for Nidranasam

(sleeplessness) and Smrithy Bhrahmsom (loss of memory) and that the

treatment is still continuing. The certificate produced by the petitioner

was not relied upon by the appellate authority as it was found to be

insufficient to provide any justification for the delay of more than 6 ½

years in filing the appeal.

8. The vague medical certificates produced by the petitioner as

Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are not sufficient to condone the long delay. No

reliance can be placed on those certificates to come to a conclusion that

petitioner was incapacitated from filing an appeal.

9. Apart from the above, the counter affidavit of the respondents,

specifically alleges that, during the period of 6 ½ years of delay,

petitioner himself had filed O.S.No.71 of 2007 before the Munsiff's Court,

Varkala against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him.

It is also stated that petitioner had even approached this Court in WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946 W.P.(C) No.36887 of 2007. Initiation of both the above proceedings

indicate that petitioner was not incapable of approaching a court of law

during the period from 2005 to 2011.

10. Further, the medical certificates do not indicate the nature of

illness and no material was produced to indicate that petitioner was

totally incapable of even engaging an authorised representative for filing

an appeal.

11. Though generally, the term 'sufficient cause' should be

construed liberally, the extent to which such liberal consideration ought to

be adopted depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The

liberal consideration of a delay petition is coupled with the requirement

that each day's delay should be explained with sufficient clarity. Relying

on the decisions in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v.

Bhutnath Banerjee and Others, [AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Mata Din v.

A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena alias Bharti AIR

2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation

of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629, the Supreme Court had in

Basavaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013)

14 SCC 81] held that:

"Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946 the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause"

from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."

12. Apart from the above, in the decision in N. Balakrishnan v. M.

Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] the Supreme Court had observed

that the length of delay is no matter and acceptability of the explanation

is the only criterion and further that delay of the shortest range may be

uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation, while, delay of a

very long range can be condoned, if the explanation is satisfactory. Again WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946 in the decision in Baljeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

[(2019) 15 SCC 33], it has been held that the applicant for condoning the

delay has to make out a sufficient cause and in the absence of such

cause being shown, he can be denied relief on the ground of unexplained

delay.

13. Viewed in the light of the above principles, it is evident that, in

the instant case, apart from the delay being not explained at all, there are

no materials to justify the delay of 6 ½ years in filing the appeal. The

facts and circumstances do not afford any ground to the Court to exercise

discretion in favour of the petitioner. Further, petitioner has not satisfied

the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from

prosecuting his case. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished to

condone the delay. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the

appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse, warranting an

interference by this Court.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32817/2014

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.THAMPIRAJ DATED 28/12/2011.

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.THAMPIRAJ DATED 14/10/2014.

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE STA NO. 64/2012 FOR THE AY 2000 - 2001, ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAY PETITION, DELAY PETITION ETC.

EXHIBIT P3(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE STA NO. 65/2012 FOR THE AY 2001 - 2002, ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAY PETITION, DELAY PETITION.

EXHIBIT P3(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE STA NO. 66/2012 FOR THE AY 2002 - 2003, ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAY PETITION, DELAY PETITION ETC.

EXHIBIT P3 (C): A TRUE COPY OF THE STA NO. 67/2012 FOR THE AY 2003 - 2004, ALOGG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAY PETITION, DELAY PETITION ETC.

EXHIBIT P3(D): A TRUE COPY OF THE STA NO. 68/2012 FOR THE AY 2004 - 2005, ALOGG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAY PETITION, DELAY PETITION ETC

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME FILED IN STA 64/2012.

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED IN STA NOS. 64 TO 68/2012.

WP(C) NO. 32817 OF 2014

2025:KER:30946

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2014 IN STA NOS. 64, 65, 66, 67 AND 68 OF 2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.