ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
These Revision Petitions are filed by the Assessee challenging the orders passed by the KVAT Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing INTP No.120 in TA(VAT)No.880 of 2011 and INTP No.122 in TA (VAT)No.881 of 2011. These INTPs.
were the applications filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay of 125 days in filing of the appeals. The Tribunal by its common order dated 14/10/2014 dismissed the applications and consequently the appeals themselves. It is in these circumstances these revisions are filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is a dealer under the KVAT Act. For the months of July-August, 2009, on the allegation of unaccounted purchase, penalty was levied on the petitioner. The penalty was confirmed by the first appellate authority. It was aggrieved by these orders the petitioner filed the appeals along with petitions for O.T.(Rev.).Nos.197 & 202 of 2014 2 condonation of 125 days' delay, which, as stated earlier, were dismissed by the Tribunal. It is in this background the revisions are filed.
4. In these appeals, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to condone the delay as prayed for. A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the delay has been properly explained. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, we notice that the case of the assessee was that he was undergoing treatment for medical illness and that therefore the delay has occurred. It is also seen that the assessee had produced a medical certificate issued by the Doctor, who was treating him.
5. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is really not length of delay in filing that matters and what has to be examined is whether the petitioner has given a plausible explanation for the delay that has occurred. Insofar as this case is concerned, the definite case of the petitioner is that, it was the medical illness that prevented them from filing the appeal in time. The Tribunal did not find any contra material to disbelieve the contentions of the O.T.(Rev.).Nos.197 & 202 of 2014 3 petitioner. In such circumstances, according to us, the Tribunal should not have rejected the applications and dismissed the appeal itself at the threshold depriving the petitioner an opportunity to argue his case on merits.
6. Therefore, we are unable to sustain Annexure-G common order passed by the Tribunal dismissing INTP Nos.120 & 122 in TA (VAT)Nos.880 & 881 of 2011. Accordingly, the order dated 14/10/2014 dismissing the applications are set aside. The delay will stand condoned and the Tribunal is directed to consider TA (VAT) Nos.880 & 881 of 2011 on merits and pass orders thereon in accordance with law.
The O.Ps.(Rev.) are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj