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 THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.152 of 2005 --------------------------------------- T.A.NO.375/2003 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2003 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99). .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- M/S. ORYX FASHION, READYMADE GARMENTS, GURUVAYOOR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.152 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.294/2005 & 729/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th 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 Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No. 375/2003 dated 26th September, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 302 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, firstly they have stated that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, though it is dated 26.9.2003, was received by them only on 11.2.2004 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam had distributed the certified copy of the orders passed S.T.Rev.No. 152/2005 -2- by the Tribunal in the office for examining whether an appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. It is further stated that the remarks were received from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Irinjalakuda on 5.6.2004. It is further stated that, the remarks along with the connected files were forwarded to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing appeal/revision on 18.6.2004. They have further stated that immediately thereafter the revision came to be filed along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. 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. 6. The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly 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 11.2.2004 and 5.6.2004, and also between 18.6.2004 and 10.3.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision S.T.Rev.No. 152/2005 -3- petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. 7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS