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 FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No.139 of 2008 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM DATED 18.5.2005 IN TA.No.406/2004) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- M/S.MICHAEL JOSEPH & COMPANY, HOTEL MAHARANI, PALA. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 139 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.361 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th 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 Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, in T.A.No.406/2004 dated 18.5.2005. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 848 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 18.5.2005 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 25.10.2005, and, that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Law Officer, Commercial Taxes, Kottayam for report. It is further stated that, the files were misplaced in the office of the Law Officer. 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 filed work. For effective revenue collection review meetings are conducted by the higher authorities and revenue authorities periodically. In the above circumstances, it is stated that, there is S.T.Rev.No. 139/2008 -2- some delay in forwarding the remarks on the appellate order, after examining the records and discussing the legal issues with the higher authorities. 3. It is further stated that, the Law Officer, after going through the files forwarded a report based on which the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter dated 17.12.2007 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 23.1.2008 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal. 4. It is further stated in the affidavit that, due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. It is stated that, after examination of the files, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) 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 25.4.2008. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to exigencies of work. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. S.T.Rev.No. 139/2008 -3- 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 25.10.2005 and 23.1.2008 and between 23.1.2008 and 21.5.2008. 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