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 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 263 of 2008 ------------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 15.1.2007 OF KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-II , ERNAKULAM IN TA.474/2006) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.M.VINU, BISMI POLYMERS, KANJIRAKKADU, PERUMBAVOOR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.263 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.859 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th 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-II, Ernakulam in T.A.No.474/2006 dated 15.01.2007. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 410 days. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. 3. Along with the application for condoning the delay, the applicant has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit it is stated that, the order of the Tribunal dated 15.01.2007 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner of Law only on 16.04.2007. It is stated that due to heavy office work, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Mattacherry could forward his official remarks to the Commissioner only on 17.7.2007. The remarks were received in the office of the Commissioner on 27.7.2007 only. The Deputy Commissioner (General) after analysing the remarks in the case file, forwarded the request for S.T.Rev.No. 263/2008 -2- examining the scope for filing revision case to the office of the Advocate General as per letter dated 25.8.2007 through the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law). The Joint Commissioner received the said letter on 12.9.2007 and the same was placed before the office of the Advocate General on 15.10.2007. 4. It is stated in the affidavit that, on receipt of the case file the Advocate General placed the same before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for Revision on 23.10.2007. It is also stated that, due to heavy volume of administrative and court works, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) forwarded the case file to the Government Pleader for examining the scope. Though the Government Pleader found scope for filing revision, he could prepare the memorandum of revision case only on 19.8.2008. It is stated that the delay in the office of the Government Pleader has occurred due to heavy volume of administrative and court works as the Government Pleader was engaged for disposal of old pending original petitions in tax matters. 5. It is further stated in the affidavit that, after the preparation of memorandum of revision case, the file was sent to the section for preparation of paper books and the section prepared the paper S.T.Rev.No. 263/2008 -3- books on 28.8.2008 and that after obtaining the signature of the Government Pleader on 28.8.2008, the revision was filed on 29.8.2008. It is stated that delay is not wilful or deliberate. 6. The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly unsatisfactory. We do not mean that the Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to satisfactorily explain the delay that occurred between 16.4.2007 and 15.10.2007, and also between 23.10.2007 and 29.08.2008. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS