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 WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No.322 of 2008 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.11.2006 IN TA.No.418/2006) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S ASTROVISION FUTURE TECH (P)LTD., ERNAKULAM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 322 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.1020 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd 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.418/2006 dated 10.11.2006. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 491 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 it is stated that, the order of the Tribunal passed on 10.11.2006 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 13.3.2007, and, that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam for report. Based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal/revision. It is stated that, the above letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 11.7.2007 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal. S.T.Rev.No.322/2008 -2- 3. It is further stated in the affidavit that, due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Government Pleader (Taxes) having examined the files called for the records of the case. It is stated that after examination of the files, the Government Pleader was of the opinion that Revision ought to be filed and hence prepared the same. It is stated that, after preparation of the revision, the same was sent for approval. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the same, sent it to the filing section for filing on 30.9.2008. 4. It is 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 had 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, 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 is done after verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. S.T.Rev.No.322/2008 -3- 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 13.3.2007 and 11.7.2007 and between 11.7.2007 and 15.10.2008.. 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. 8. 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