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.138 of 2008 --------------------------------------- (ORDER OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM DATED 13.2.2006 IN TA.No.264/2005) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.THALIYATH & CYRILS JEWELLERS, JEWEL JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 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. 138 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.360 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A.No.264/2005 dated 13.2.2006. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 639 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 13.2.2006 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 22.5.2006, and, that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Assessing Authority for report. 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 some delay in forwarding the remarks on the appellate order, after examining S.T.Rev.No.138/2008 -2- 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 and also the report of the assessing authority forwarded a report dated 21.11.2007 based on which the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter dated 19.12.2007 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 15.1.2008 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, the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) having examined the entire matter called for the records of the above case. 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 21.4.2008. S.T.Rev.No.138/2008 -3- 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. 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 22.5.2006 and 21.11.2007 and between 15.1.2008 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