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 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.144 of 2005 ------------------------------------------ T.A.NO.450 OF 2002 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ORDER DATED 30.4.2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000). .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S. LAKSHMI WINES, PERAMBRA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.144 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.278/2005 & 701/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of September, 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, Kozhikode in T.A.No. 450/2002 dated 30th April, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 532 days. 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 30.4.2003, was received by them only on 24.6.2003 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner S.T.Rev.No. 144/2005 -2- (Law), Ernakulam had distributed the certified copy of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the office for examining whether an appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. It is further stated that report was called for from the Sales Tax Officer, Perambra. It is stated that remarks were received from the Sales Tax Officer, Perambra and the report along with the files were forwarded to the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having examined the files requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for revision by letter dated 22.10.2003. It is further stated that the remarks along with the connected files were forwarded to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal on 1.7.2004. It is stated that due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) assigned the files to a Government Pleader for drafting the same. However, the Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters were kept pending. Subsequently the term of the Government Pleader was not extended. It is also stated that the files were again placed S.T.Rev.No. 144/2005 -3- before the Special Government Pleader. It is stated that after preparation of the revision the same was signed on 17.2.2005 and entrusted to the office of the Advocate General for filing. They have further stated that immediately thereafter the revision came to be filed along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to exigencies of work both at the offices of the Commercial Taxes Department as also at the Office of the Advocate General. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 6. 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 24.6.2003 and 22.10.2003, and also between 1.7.2004 and 7.3.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. 7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 8. In view of the order passed in the revision petition, no S.T.Rev.No. 144/2005 -4- orders need be passed in I.A.No.1662/2008 and therefore it is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS