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 WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ST.Rev..No.78 of 2008 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM DATED 23.5.2006 IN TA.No.523/2004) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------- M/S. HIGHLAND PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No. of 78 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.163 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A.No.523/2004 dated 23.5.2006. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 411 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 23.5.2006 was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (General), Thiruvananthapuram on 11.10.2006, and, that, the same was sent to the Assessing Authority for obtaining his remarks on 30.10.2006. It is stated that, since the circle offices were overburdened with multifarious work such as return scrutiny, processing VAT refund applications, assessment, creating of demand, collection of taxes etc and the review meeting of higher authorities and revenue authorities, the assessing authority could not devote time to offer his remarks on the order of the S.T.Rev.No. 78/2008 -2- Tribunal. It is stated that, there was considerable delay in returning the remarks to the office of the Deputy Commissioner (General), Thiruvananthapuram. It was sent only on 30.6.2007. It is stated that, the order of the Tribunal was forwarded to the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) Ernakulam on 4.9.2007. Thereafter, the order of the Tribunal and remarks were sent to the office of the Advocate General on 29.10.2007. It is stated that, since the post was lying vacant, the files and the order were handed over to the Special Government Pleader for Taxes on 8.11.2007 for examining the scope for appeal. It is stated that the Special Government Pleader having examined the matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed and hence entrusted the matter with the Government Pleader who was attending the chamber duty on 29.11.2007. After preparation of the revision, the same was sent for approval of the learned Additional Advocate General on 10.12.2007. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the same, has sent it to the filing section for filing on 24.12.2007. It is stated that the delay has occurred in the above circumstances. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 3. 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 S.T.Rev.No. 78/2008 -3- supposed to satisfactorily explain the delay that has occurred between 11.10.2006 and 30.6.2007 and also between 8.11.2007 and 28.2.2008 . 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. 4. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 5. 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