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 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.304 of 2008 ------------------------------------ (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD DATED 14.6.2006 IN T.A.NO.575/2004) ......................... 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: -------------------------------------------------------- R.K.LATEX & RUBBER DEALER, ANAMALLAIS HOUSE ANNEXE, THRISSUR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. 304 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.984 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th 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.575/2004 dated 14.6.2006. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 587 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, they have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 14.6.2006 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 1.11.2006, and, that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), Special Circle, Thrissur for report. Based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), the Deputy Commissioner (General) Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram by letter dated 16.4.2007 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 S.T.Rev.No. 304/2008 -2- office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 16.5.2007 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal on 24.5.2007. It is stated that the Special Government Pleader having examined the matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed and hence prepared the revision and submitted the same for approval of the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the same, has sent it to the filing section for filing on 18.9.2008. 3. It is 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 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 proposals for filing revision. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was S.T.Rev.No. 304/2008 -3- caused due to exigencies of work. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 4. 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 1.11.2006 and 16.5.2007, and also between 24.5.2007 and 18.9.2008. 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. 5. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 6. The question 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