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.207 of 2005 ------------------------------------ ( T.A.NO. 40/2003 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 16.9.2003 ) ............... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- JAGADEESH BABU' SREE MOOKAMBIKA SAW MILL, COTTARA, KOLLENGODE. 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.207 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.404/2005 & 769/2008 --------------------------------------------- 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.40/2003 dated 16th September, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 313 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 16.9.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) Ernakulam on 27.2.2004, and that, immediately on receipt, the S.T.Rev.No. 207/2005 -2- same was distributed in the office for examining scope of appeal and report was called for from the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Chittoor. It is stated that, the report dated 26.7.2004 along with the files were forwarded to the Secretary, Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram for remarks and the said office requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for revision by letter dated 16.9.2004. 5. 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 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. It is also stated that some delay is also caused due to transmission of the S.T.Rev.No. 207/2005 -3- files from one office to another. 6. It is also stated in the affidavit that, the remarks along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Deputy Commissioner (General) Thiruvananthapuram on 19.11.2004 to the Office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal. Due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) assigned the files to a Government Pleader for drafting the revision. It is stated that the Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters were kept pending. Subsequently, the term of the Government Pleader was not extended. It is also stated that, considering the pendency of a number of cases and the situation of alarming delay in filing the revision petitions, the department deputed an Assistant Commissioner and a stenographer to assist the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) in preparing the revision. The files were again placed before the Special Government Pleader. After preparation of the revision the same was signed on 15.3.2005 and entrusted to the office of the Advocate General for filing. 7. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due S.T.Rev.No. 207/2005 -4- 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 27.2.2004 and 26.7.2004, and also between 19.11.2004 and 5.4.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require 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