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 FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 S.T.Rev.No. 208of 2005 ------------------------------------ T.A.NO. 514/2003 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 30.6.2003)(ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-1998) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------------------- M/S.DEEPA PANELS, MANUFACTURERS OF CHEMICALLY TREATED RUBBER WOOD PRODUCTS, VILAYUR, PATTAMBI. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.208 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.403/2005, 640/2008 & 764/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th 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.514/2003 dated 30.06.2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 314 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 another two affidavits before us. In the said affidavits, they have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 30.6.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) Ernakulam on 11.2.2004. Immediately on receipt, S.T.Rev.No. 208/2005 -2- the same was distributed in the office for examining the scope for filing appeal/revision and the same was forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (General), Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The Deputy Commissioner called for report from the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad. It is stated that, after receipt of the report from the Deputy commissioner, Palakkad, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter dated 26.4.2004 requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing appeal/revision. The above letter along with the connected files were forwarded to the office of the Advocate General on 18.6.2004 and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing appeal/revision on 9.7.2004. 5. It is further stated in the affidavit 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 the proposal. It is also stated that the Circle Offices are 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. It is stated that in addition to this, periodic review meetings are S.T.Rev.No. 208/2005 -3- also conducted by the higher authorities and also the revenue authorities to boost up the revenue collection and to ensure follow up action. It is also stated that some delay is caused by reason of transmitting the files from one office to another. It is also stated that due to court work and other drafting work, the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) assigned the files to a Government Pleader for drafting the revision. It is stated that the Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters were kept pending. Subsequently the term of the Government Pleader was not extended. It is also stated that taking into account the pendency of a number of cases and the situation of alarming delay in filing the revisions, the department deputed an Assistant Commissioner and a stenographer to assist the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) in preparing the revision. The files were again placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) and immediately after preparation of the revision petition, the same was filed on 21.3.2005. It is also 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 further stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 6. The explanation offered by the petitioner for S.T.Rev.No. 208/2005 -4- 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 11.02.2004 and 18.06.2004, and also between 09.07.2004 and 21.03.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision 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