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 THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No.342 of 2008 --------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD DATED 30.10.2006 IN TA.No.338/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001). .................... REVISION PETITION/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- DR.GEORGE JACOB, WYNAD RESINGS, WANDOOR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 342 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.1050 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R 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.338/2006 dated 30.10.2006 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 507 days. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Along with the application for condoning the delay, the applicant has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit it is stated that, the order of the Tribunal passed on 30.10.2006 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 8.3.2007, and that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt-I), Special Circle, Tirur for report. It is stated that, the Assistant Commissioner, after going through the files forwarded a report based on which the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter dated 16.5.2008 requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal/revision. The above letter along with the files were forwarded from S.T.Rev.No. 342/2008 -2- the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 17.6.2008 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining scope for appeal on 26.6.2008. It is stated that, due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader having examined the same was of the opinion that Revision ought to be filed in the above matter and hence prepared a revision and submitted the same for approval of the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the same sent it to the filing section on 20.10.2008. 3. It is stated in the affidavit that, Circle Offices are dealing with multifarious work such as returns scrutiny, processing of VAT refund applications, assessment, creation of demand, collection of tax etc. The officers are also engaged in field work. It is stated that, periodic review meetings are also conducted by the higher authorities and also the revenue authorities to boost up the revenue collection and to ensure follow up action. In the above circumstances, the assessing authorities are taking some time to forward the remarks from the appellate order since the same is done after verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. 4. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to S.T.Rev.No. 342/2008 -3- exigencies of work. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 5. The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly unsatisfactory. We do not mean that Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to satisfactorily explain the delay that has occurred between 8.3.2007 and 17.6.2008, and also between 26.6.2008 and 25.10.2008. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 6. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 7. The question of law raised in the revision petition is left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS