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 TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev..No. 266 of 2005 ----------------------------------- ORDER DATED 31.12.2002 IN TA.502/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.266 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos. 459 of 2005 & 629 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of August, 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, Ernakulam in T.A.No.502 of 2000 dated 31st December, 2002. 2. In filing the revision, there is enormous delay. 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 S.T.Rev.No. 266/2005 -2- by the Tribunal, though it is dated 31st December, 2002 was received by them only on 20th June, 2003 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam, had called for the report from the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Ernakulam. It is further stated that they received the report from the Assistant Commissioner on 20.6.2004 based on which the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing appeal/revision. 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 9.7.2004 for examining the scope for appeal. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) having examined the entire matter was of the opinion that Revision ought to be filed in the above matter and hence prepared a Revision. The Revision was sent for signature of the authorised representative who signed it on 12-1-2005. After obtaining the signature the section has taken some time in preparing the paper book and filing the same before this Court. It is stated that the delay occurred due to the heavy work load in the office of the Commercial Taxes Department and also the office of the Advocate General. S.T.Rev.No. 266/2005 -3- 5. It is further stated that the Circle Offices are dealing 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. 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. 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 petitioner has not explained the delay in getting the report, from the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Ernakulam, whether to prefer an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, for the delay between 20.6.2003 till 20.6.2004, there is no explanation whatsoever. This unexplained delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court, much less a Court which is entertaining a revision petition. S.T.Rev.No. 266/2005 -4- We do not mean that the Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to explain the delay of one year in sending the paper from Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam to Advocate General's Office. In our opinion, this unexplained delay is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, we cannot accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. 7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS