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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.119 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- T.A.NO.687/2002 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, PALAKKAD. (ORDER DATED 31ST MARCH, 2003 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- K.C.JOSE, JANATHA JEWELLARY, VADAKKANCHERRY. ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.119 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.227/2005 &758/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No. 687/2002 dated 31.3.2003, is before us in this revision petition. (2) In filing the revision, there is a delay of 372 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, they have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 31.3.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 19.11.2003 and that, immediately on receipt, the same was S.T.Rev.No.119/2005 -2- distributed in the office for examining scope of appeal and the same was also forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thrissur for remarks. It is stated that, based on the remarks received from the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Thrissur dated 19.3.2004, the files were sent to the Office of the Secretary, Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram who requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal/revision. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that, there is some delay in preparing the report by the concerned officers since the proposals for appeal are made in addition to regular work and the entire records had to be examined for sending the proposal. It is also stated that the Circle Offices are dealing with multifarious work such as returns scrutiny, processing of 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. It S.T.Rev.No.119/2005 -3- is also stated that some delay is also caused in transmitting the files from one office to another. 6. It is also stated in the affidavit that, the letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 2.4.2004 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 29.5.2004. It is stated that, due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. Since the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) having examined was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed, he has prepared the revision. After preparation, the same was signed on 4.2.2005 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. 7. 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. 8. The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly S.T.Rev.No.119/2005 -4- 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 19.11.2003 and 19.3.2004, and also between 29.5.2004 and 22.2.2005. 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. 9. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 10. In view of the order passed in the revision petition, no order need be passed in I.A.No.1900/2008 and therefore, it is closed. 11. 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