IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 3RD ASWINA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 481 of 2004 --------------------------------- ORDER DATED 13.11.2000 IN TA.618/1992 OF KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. SADASIVAN ASSOCIATES, RETAIL RESELLERS IN ARRACK & IMFL, LAXMI VILLA, THALASSERY. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 25/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ C.M.Appln.No.1224 of 2004 & S.T.Rev.No.481 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 25th day of September, 2007 ORDER H.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A. No.618 of 1992 dated 13th November, 2000. 2. In filing the revision petition there is a delay of 1067 days. For condoning the delay in filing the revision petition an application is also filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with the application the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam is also filed. It is a stereo typed affidavit. Except filling up the blanks here and there, nothing else has been stated by the Deputy Commissioner for approaching this Court belatedly questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Tribunal in TA.No.618 of 1992. 3. The explanation offered by the applicant in his affidavit is as under: “2. The Order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, Kozhikode in T.A.No.618/92 dated 13.11.00 was received in my Office on 28.3.01. On 28.3.01 itself the order along with connected files were distributed in my Office for examining the scope for filing Tax Revision. Thereafter the Order along with the suggestions were forwarded to the Secretary, Taxes suggesting to file Sales Tax Revision. The same was again received in my Office on 2.5.01. And the same was sent to the Office of the Advocate General for preparing the Revision Petition. After Revision was prepared I had signed the same on 20.5.04 and entrusted the Office of the Advocate General for filing Sales Tax Revision. 3. Calculating from the date of receipt of the Order the Sales Tax Revision ought to have been filed on or before 25.6.01. However, the same could be filed only on 27.5.04. Thus the delay of 1067 days has occurred in filing the Sales S.T.Rev.No.481/2004 2 Tax Revision. The delay caused is not due to any wilful neglect or laches on my part or in my Office. The delay is purely due to administrative reasons as explained above. I am advised that there is every chance of winning the case. Therefore it is only just and proper that the delay of 1067 days occurred in filing the revision petition is condoned. An application is also filed herewith for the said purpose.” 4. We have carefully perused the reasons assigned by the applicant for approaching this Court belatedly. 5. In filing the revision petition, in our opinion, the said explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly, the said application requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 4. Consequently, the tax revision petition also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE vns