IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 S.T.Rev..No.155 of 2005 --------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 21/07/2003 IN T.A.NO.492/2002 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- M/S. KURIKKAL PLYWOODS, CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ----------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.155 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.301 of 2005 & 641 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No.492 of 2002 dated 21st July, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is enormous delay. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. 3. When the matter had been posted before the Court on the earlier occasion, after seeing that the affidavit filed is nothing but a stereo-typed affidavit, we had directed the learned Government Advocate to file a better affidavit, if they so desire. Therefore, the matter was adjourned. 4. The Revenue has filed yet another affidavit before us. In the said affidavit, firstly they have stated that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, though it is dated 21st July, 2003, was received by the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam only on 19th November, 2003 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner (Law) had distributed the certified copy of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the office for S.T.Rev.155/2005 - 2 - examining whether an appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the same was forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial taxes, Malappuram for his remarks. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Malappuram forwarded his remarks to the Joint Commissioner Law on 29.3.2004. Based on the aforesaid report, the Joint Commissioner (Law), requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. The aforesaid letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 12.4.2004 and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing an appeal/revision on 29.05.2004. Since the Special Government Pleader was busy with Court work and other drafting work, the files could not be taken up immediately. Since the Special Government Pleader was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed in the matter, the same was prepared on 18.2.2005 and filed on 10.3.2005, along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. In the affidavit filed, two things are clear. Firstly, the petitioner has not explained the delay in getting the report, from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Malappuram, whether to prefer an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the explanation offered for the delay occurred in the office of the Advocate S.T.Rev.155/2005 - 3 - General between 29.5.2004 and 10.3.2005 is not at all satisfactory. This unexplained delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court, much less a Court which is entertaining a revision petition. We do not mean that the Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to explain the delay in sending the papers from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam to the Advocate General's Office, coupled with the enormous delay happened in the office of the Advocate General. In our opinion, this unexplained delay is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, we cannot accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. 6. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-