SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
M/S. INNOVATE DESIGNERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER – Respondent
RP NO. 495 OF 2026 | WA NO.735 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.KRISHNA, SHRI.ACHYUTH MENON, SMT.PARVATHY MENON, SHRI. V. HARISANKAR, SMT.ANNA ANTO
For the Respondents: SMT M M JASMN -G P

Delayed certified copy receipt extends statutory appeal period if bona fide impression existed from prior judgment observations.

Headnote:The review petition challenges the delay in receiving the certified copy of the judgment dated 24.03.2026, after the statutory appeal period expired on 02.04.2026, with receipt on 06.04.2026. The court observed that the appellant was under a bona fide impression that appellate remedies could be invoked based on the judgment's observations. The court allowed the petition, clarifying that a statutory appeal filed within four working days from this order's receipt would be deemed timely, with authorities permitting online upload without impediment, as agreed by the Government Pleader. The issue framed is whether the delay in certified copy delivery extends the appeal period. The ratio decidendi holds that bona fide impressions from court observations and delayed delivery entitle the appellant to additional time for statutory appeal. The petition is allowed, granting four working days from this order for filing the appeal, deemed within time.

Table of Content
1. review sought due to delayed certified copy after appeal expiry. (Para 2)
2. court grants appeal period extension for delayed delivery. (Para 3)
3. appeal within four days deemed timely with online permission. (Para 4)

O R D E R

Dated this the 8thday of April, 2026Devan Ramachandran, JThis petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment 24.03.2026, not because there is any error in it, but on the assertion that its certified copy was received only on 06.04.2026, within which time, the period for filing the statutory appeal had expired, on 02.04.2026.

2. We notice the judgment is dated 24.03.2026; and we were under the bonafide impression that the appellant would be able to invoke their appellate remedy on the strength of our observations therein, within the statutory period.

3. However, since the certified copy of the judgment appears to have been delivered to the appellant only on 06.04.2026, we are of the firm view that afore period must still be made available to the appellant.

4. In the afore circumstances, we allow this petition; and clarify that if the petitioner is to file a statutory appeal within a period of four working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it shall be construed to have been filed within time.

For the afore purpose, the Authorities will permit the petitioner to upload the appeal, if filed within the afore time, on the online platform without any impediment; and we record that this has been agreed to by Smt.Jasmin – learned Government Pleader.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top