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 TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 257 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 20/01/2007 IN TA.143/2006 & CO.16/2006 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD) .................... 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/ASSESSE: ---------------------------------------------------------- SRI.K.M.DASAN, SAHAKARANA TIMBER INDUSTRIES, CHENGALOOR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2008 & C.M.Appln No.838 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th 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, Palakkad in T.A.No.143/2006 & C.O.16/2006 dated 20th January, 2007. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 301 days. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. 3. Along with the application for condoning the delay, the applicant has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit it is stated that, the order of the Tribunal dated 20.1.2007 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner of Law only on 19.3.2007. It is stated that since the Intelligence Officer, Investigation, Thrissur has completed the assessment, the said officer was required to furnish the details of the assessments and also his opinion. It is stated that on receipt of the opinion from the assessing authority, the order of the Tribunal was S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2008 -2- placed before the office of the Advocate General on 6.8.2007 for legal opinion. 4. It is further stated that the order of the Tribunal was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for legal opinion and scope for filing a Tax Revision Case on 6.8.2007. It is stated that meanwhile the office of the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) was vacant due to resignation. On 20.8.2007, the Government appointed three Government Pleaders for conducting the tax cases and the file then submitted before the newly appointed Government Pleaders (Taxes) on 21.8.2007. Considering the entire facts and consideration of the case and legal position, the Government Pleader suggested the scope for revision and instructed the Department to make available the back records of the case. It is further stated that since the impugned order relates to altogether 37 appeals, the assessing authority has to trace out the files regarding the assessment proceedings against each one of the dealers and also to prepare the reports. The records made available by the assessing authority was forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader on 29.9.2007. 5. It is also stated in the affidavit that, since there were altogether 37 appeals against which the impugned common order was S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2008 -3- passed by the Tribunal, detailed examinations of the assessment records were highly necessary to prepare the tax revision case. It is further stated that the Government Pleader, while preparing the Tax Revision, took some time because of overcrowding of case files in his office. Along with the administrative work, he was entrusted the regular court works also. It is also stated that the section consumed some time for preparation of paper books with memorandum of revision, assessment order, first appellate order and also the impugned Tribunal order and submitted the paper books for signature of the Government Pleader on 10.10.2007. After signature of the paper book, the file was submitted the learned Additional Advocate General for approval. After obtaining the approval, 20 revisions were filed on 17.10.2007. However by oversight 17 revisions were omitted to be filed. The present revision is filed only on 8.4.2008. It is also stated that delay is not wilful or deliberate. 6. The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly unsatisfactory. We do not mean that the Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to satisfactorily explain the delay that occurred between 19.3.2007 and 6.8.2007 and also between 17.10.2007 and 8.4.2008. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision S.T.Rev.No.257 of 2008 -4- 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. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS