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 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No.183 of 2008 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM IN TA.No.623/2004 & C.O.No.22/2005 DATED 30.5.2005) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- M/S.MILMA, TRIPUNITHURA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 183 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.427 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of December, 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-I, Ernakulam in T.A.No.623/2004 & C.O.No.22/2005 dated 30.5.2005. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 839 days. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Along with the said application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit, they have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 30.5.2005 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 28.11.2005, and, that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Law Officer, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam for report. Based on the report of the Law Officer, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by letter dated 14.5.2008 requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal/revision. It is stated that the above letter along with the S.T.Rev.No. 183/2008 -2- connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 23.5.2008 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal. It is stated that the Special Government Pleader having examined the matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed and hence prepared the revision and submitted the same for approval of the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the same, has sent it to the filing section for filing on 12.6.2008. 3. It is stated in the affidavit that, Circle Offices are dealing with multifarious work such as returns scrutiny, processing of VAT refund applications, assessment, creation of demand, collection of tax etc. The officers are also engaged in field work. It is stated that, 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 above circumstances, the assessing authorities are taking some time to forward the remarks from the appellate order since the same was done after verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to exigencies of S.T.Rev.No. 183/2008 -3- work. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 4. 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 28.11.2005 and 23.5.2008. 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. 5. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 6. The questions of law raised in the revision petition is left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS