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 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.277 of 2005 ------------------------------------ ( T.A.NO. 515/2003 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 30.6.2003 ) ............... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- M/S.DEEPA PANELS, MANUFACTURERS OF CHEMICALLY TREATED RUBBER WOOD PRODUCTS, VILAYOOR, PATTAMBI. ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.277 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.502/2005 & 690/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th 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 Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad, in T.A.No.515/2003 dated 30th June, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 379 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 30.6.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) Ernakulam on 11.2.2004, and that, immediately on receipt, the S.T.Rev.No. 277/2005 -2- same was distributed in the office for examining scope of appeal and the same was forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (General), Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that, the Deputy Commissioner called for report from the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad. Based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter dated 26.4.2004 requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal. 5. It is stated that, the letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 18.6.2004 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining scope for appeal on 9.7.2004. It is also stated that, due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. Since the Special Government Pleader (Taxes), having examined the matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed, he prepared the revision. After preparation of the revision, the same was signed on 24.1.2005 and entrusted to the office of the Advocate General for filing 6. It is stated in the affidavit that, there is some delay in preparing the report by the concerned officers since the proposals for S.T.Rev.No. 277/2005 -3- 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. 7. It is further 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. 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 11.2.2004 and 18.6.2004, and also between 9.7.2004 S.T.Rev.No. 277/2005 -4- and 25.5.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and they are rejected. 9. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS