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 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 S.T.Rev.No. 194 of 2005 ------------------------------------ (T.A.NO. 610/2002 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 19.3.2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-1996) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------- T.P.SELSON, SELCO INDUSTRIES, KODUNGALLOOR. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.194 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.361/2005 & 773/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No.610/2002 dated 19th March, 2003. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 437 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, they have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 19.3.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) Ernakulam on 9.10.2003. It is stated that immediately on receipt the S.T.Rev.No.194/2005 -2- same was distributed in the office for examining scope for filing appeal and report was called for from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Irinjalakuda. The report dated 28.1.2004 along with the files were forwarded to the Secretary, Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram and the said office requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal by letter dated 6.5.2004. It is also stated that the above 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 scope for appeal on 29.5.2004. 5. It is further stated in the affidavit that some delay has occurred in preparing the report by the concerned officers since the proposals for appeal are made in addition to regular work and the entire records have to be examined for sending the proposal. It is also stated that the Circle Offices are dealing with multifarious work such as returns scrutiny, processing of refund applications, assessment, creation of demand, collection of tax etc. The officers are also engaged in field work. It is also stated that in addition to periodic review meeting are also conducted by the higher authorities and also the revenue authorities to boost up the revenue collection and to ensure follow up action. In the circumstances the assessing authorities are taking some time to forward S.T.Rev.No.194/2005 -3- the remarks from the appellate order since the same is done after verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. It is also stated that some delay is caused in transmitting the files from one office to another. 6. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) before whom the file was placed for examining the scope for filing appeal/revision assigned the same to a Government Pleader for drafting the revision. However, the Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters were kept pending. It is further stated that subsequently the term of the Government Pleader was not extended. It is also stated that many cases in which revision ought to have been filed were kept pending. It is further stated that taking into account the pendency of number of cases and the situation of alarming delay in filing the revisions, the department deputed an Assistant Commissioner and a stenographer to assist the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) in preparing the revision. The files were again placed before the Special Government Pleader. It is stated that after preparation of the revision the same was signed on 7.2.2005 and filed on 17.3.2005. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to exigencies of work both at the offices of the Commercial S.T.Rev.No.194/2005 -4- Taxes Department as also at the Office of the Advocate General. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 7. 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 has occurred between 09.10.2003 and 28.01.2004, and also between 29.05.2004 and 17.03.2005. 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. 8. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS