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 THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.193 of 2005 --------------------------------------- A.I.T.A.NO.9/1994 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- M/S.HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-3. 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 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.193 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.360/2005 & 754/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of September, 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, Ernakulam in AIT.A.No.9/1994 dated 20.1.2001. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 1347 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, firstly they have stated that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, though it is dated 20.1.2001, was received by them only on 18.4.2001 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner S.T.Rev.No. 193/2005 -2- (Law), Ernakulam had distributed the certified copy of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the office for examining whether an appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and report was called for from the Law Officer, Ernakulam. After receipt of the report the files were forwarded to the office of the Secretary Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram and the said office requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal by letter dated 14.5.2001. It is further stated that, the remarks along with the connected files were forwarded to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing appeal/revision. It is stated that due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) assigned a number of files to a Government Pleader for drafting the same. However the Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters were kept pending. It is also stated that the instant case file was misplaced and no revision was prepared. They have further stated that immediately after the preparation of revision the same was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due S.T.Rev.No. 193/2005 -3- 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. 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 18.4.2001 and 14.5.2001 and also between 14.5.2001 and 18.3.2005. 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. 7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS