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.70 of 2008 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 4.2.2005 IN TA.No.772/2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. HIGHASHIMARU FEED INDIA LTD., W.ISLAND. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR 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. 70 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.150 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-II, Ernakulam, in T.A.No.772/2003 dated 4.2.2005. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 861 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 4.2.2005 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 19.7.2005, and, that, remarks were called for from the Law Officer, Ernakulam on 2.8.2005. It is stated that, the circle offices were over burdened 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. For effective revenue collection, review meetings are conducted by the higher authorities and revenue authorities periodically. It is stated that, in the S.T.Rev.No. 70/2008 -2- circumstances there is some delay in forwarding the remarks on the appellate order after examining the records and after discussing the legal issues with the higher authorities. 3. It is further stated in the affidavit that, the Law Officer, Ernakulam forwarded the remarks and the same was placed before the Advocate General for examining the scope of appeal/revision and the Advocate General forwarded the same to the office of the Special Government Pleader (Taxes). It is stated that the incumbent in the said office had examined the files and opined that there is no scope for appeal in the matter. Subsequently, on further examination, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was of the opinion that, the issue should be re-examined and the same was again forwarded to the office of the Advocate General on 15.9.2007. It is stated that, since at that point of time there was no Special Government Pleader (Taxes) the same could not be placed for opinion. Subsequently on 18.10.2007 the files were placed before the new incumbent in the office of the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on 18.10.2007. Due to the huge delay, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) called for the records and also comments from the concerned officers. The records along with the explanation for the delay was placed before the Special Government S.T.Rev.No. 70/2008 -3- pleader (Taxes) on 11.1.2008. 4. It is further stated in the affidavit that, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) due to heavy work in his office and also court work could not take up the matter immediately. 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 of the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the same, sent it to the filing section for filing on 13.2.2008. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to exigencies of work, and, 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 19.7.2005 and 15.9.2007 and also between 18.10.2007 and 25.2.2008.. 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. S.T.Rev.No. 70/2008 -4- 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