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.123 of 2005 --------------------------------------- T.A.NO.143 OF 1999 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE (ORDER DATED 17th MAY, 2001) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- THRIKKARIPETTA TIMBERS, MOORIYAD, CALICUT. 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.123 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.236/2005 & 730/2008 --------------------------------------------- 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.143/1999 dated17.5.2001. 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 17.5.2001, was received by them only on 24.12.2001 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner S.T.Rev.No. 123/2005 -2- (Law), Ernakulam distributed the same in the office for examining the scope for filing appeal/revision and the same was forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kozhikode for report. Based on the report, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal/revision. The above letter along with the connected files were forwarded to the office of the Advocate General on 14.3.2002. It is further stated that, by an inadvertent omission the file was not taken up immediately and the files were misplaced. They have further stated that immediately after the preparation of revision the same was 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 24.12.2001 and 14.3.2002 and also between S.T.Rev.No. 123/2005 -3- 14.3.2002 and 17.5.2004. 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 orders need be passed in I.A.No.1823/2008 and therefore it is closed Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS