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 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.197 OF 2005 ------------------------------------ (T.A.NO. 227/2003 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 25.7.2003 ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- -------------------------------------------------------- EDISON ELECTRICALS, DEALERS IN ELECTRICAL GOODS, KODUNGALLUR. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN SRI.MANU MOHAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.197 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.364/2005 & 861/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 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, Palakkad in T.A.No. 227/2003 dated 25.7.2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 371 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, they have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 25.7.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 1.12.2003, and, that, immediately on receipt, the S.T.Rev.No.197/2005 -2- same was distributed in the office for examining scope of appeal and report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur. The report was received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur on 21.5.2004. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that, there was 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 also 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 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. 6. It is further stated that, the remark along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur on 18.6.2004 to the office of the Advocate S.T.Rev.No.197/2005 -3- General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining scope for appeal on 9.7.2004. It is 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 same. 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. Many cases in which revision ought to have been filed were kept pending. It is stated that, considering 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. After preparation of the revision, the same was signed on 7.2.2005 and entrusted to the office of the Advocate General for filing. 7. 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. S.T.Rev.No.197/2005 -4- 8. 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 1.12.2003 and 21.5.2004, and also between 9.7.2004 and 7.3.2005. 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. 9. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 10. The question of law raised in this revision petition is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate matter. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS