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.170 of 2005 --------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 20.02.2001 IN T.A.972/2000 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- M/S. KING SHOE MART, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB THOMAS 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.170 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.324 of 2005 & 707 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, Additional Bench-I, Ernakulam in T.A.No.972 of 2000 dated 20th February, 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 20.02.2001, was received by the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam only on 8.5.2001 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 examining whether an S.T.Rev.170/2005 - 2 - appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the same was forwarded to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-II, Ernakulam. Based on the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, as per letter dated 21.5.2001, requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. The aforesaid letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate General on 5.6.2001 and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing an appeal/revision on 11.6.2001. Since the Special Government Pleader was busy with Court work and other drafting work, the files could not be taken up immediately. Since the Special Government Pleader was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed in the matter, the same was prepared on 20.5.2004 and filed on 27.5.2004, along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. In the affidavit filed, the explanation offered for the enormous delay occurred in the office of the Advocate General between 11.6.2001 and 27.5.2004 is not at all satisfactory and such 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 S.T.Rev.170/2005 - 3 - explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to explain the delay that occurred in the office of the Advocate General for about three years. 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/-