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. 156 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 21.7.2003 IN T.A.NO.413/2001 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------------ SRI.BIJU JACOB, HYDRO TECH ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, KALANJOOR, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR & SRI.V.VARGHESE 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.156 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.302 of 2005 & 672 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, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.413 of 2001 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 23rd December, 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.156/2005 - 2 - examining whether an appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. It is further stated that the papers were forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kollam. It is further stated that based on the report, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by letter dated 11.2.2004, requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing an appeal/revision. The aforesaid communication, along with the connected files, were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate General only on 1.7.2004. They have further stated that the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing an appeal/revision on 8.7.2004. Since the Government Pleader was busy with Court work and other drafting work, the files could not be taken up immediately and, thereafter, since the Government Pleader was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed in the matter, the same was prepared on 21.2.2005 and filed on 2.3.2005, 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 from 11.2.2004 to 1.7.2004 in transmitting the files from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the S.T.Rev.156/2005 - 3 - explanation offered for the delay between 8.7.2004 to 2.3.2005 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 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/-