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 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev..No. 242 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 28.3.2006 IN TA.230/2005 OF THE KERALA SALES TAXES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, FRESH ICE CREAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.242 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.735 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of August, 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, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.230 of 2005 dated 28th March, 2006. 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. Along with the application for condoning the delay, the applicant has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, the deponent has stated that, the order of the Tribunal passed on 28.3.2006 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 20.5.2006. Immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram for report. The Assistant Commissioner after going through the files forwarded a report dated 12.12.2006. It was formerly opined that there was no scope for appeal based on which the files were closed. S.T.Rev.No. 242/2008 -2- However, later, report was again called for, and, based on the report received on 22.03.2008 the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) forwarded their comments to the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter dated 1.4.2008 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) on 29.4.2008 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 1.5.2008. Due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) having examined the files was of the opinion that Revision ought to be filed in the above matter and hence prepared a Revision and submitted the same for approval. The section after receiving approval has taken some time in preparing the paper book and filing the same before this Court. 4. It is stated 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 have to be examined for sending a proposal. It is also stated that the Circle Offices are S.T.Rev.No. 242/2008 -3- 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. In addition, to this 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 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. In the circumstances there is some delay caused in forwarding the proposals for filing Revision from the orders of the appellate authority. It is stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. It is also stated that the delay in filing the revision has occurred due to the procedural delay and exigencies of work, both at the offices of the Commercial Taxes Department as also at the Office of the Advocate General. 5. In the affidavit filed, the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay in getting the report from the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram whether to prefer an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. This unexplained delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court, S.T.Rev.No. 242/2008 -4- 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 satisfactorily explain the delay of about two years from 20.5.2006 to 29.4.2008 to decide whether a revision petition to be filed against the orders passed by the Tribunal. In our opinion, this unexplained delay is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, we cannot accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 6. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS