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 MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 219 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 13.11.2003 IN T.A.No.185/2002 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-1996) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ASSESSE: ---------------------------------------------------------- M.M.NAGALINGA NADAR & COMPANY, KOLLAM. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.219 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.No.420 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the Ist 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.185 of 2002 dated 13th November, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 251 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 13th November, 2003 was received by them only on 29th April, 2004, and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam, had called for the report from the Deputy Commissioner, Kollam. It is further stated that, they received S.T.Rev.No. 219/2005 -2- the report dated 18.8.2004 from the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, the Secretary, Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram by letter dated 1.10.2004 requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing appeal. The aforesaid communication along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on 30.10.2004 for examining the scope for appeal. 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. However 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. 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 who having examined the same was of the opinion that a revision ought to be filed. After preparation of the revision the same was signed on 16.3.2005 and entrusted to the office of the S.T.Rev.No. 219/2005 -3- Advocate General for filing. It is stated that the delay occurred due to the exigencies of work both at the office of the Commercial Taxes Department and also at the office of the Advocate General. 5. It is also 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 also the entire records have to be examined for sending a proposal. It is further 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. In addition to this 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 is done after verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. It is stated that some delay is also caused in transmitting the files from one office to another. In the circumstances there is some delay caused in forwarding the proposals for filing Revision from the orders of the appellate authority. It is stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 6. In the affidavit filed, two things are clear. Firstly, the S.T.Rev.No. 219/2005 -4- petitioner has not explained the delay in getting the report, from the Deputy Commissioner, Kollam, whether to prefer an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, for the delay between 30.10.2004 till 4-4-2005, the explanation offered is not at all satisfactory. This delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court, much less a Court which is entertaining a revision petition. Therefore, we cannot accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay require to be rejected and it is rejected. 7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS