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 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.292 OF 2005 ------------------------------------ (T.A.NO.503/2000 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM (ORDER DATED 31.12.2002 ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.ANIL.D.NAIR THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.292 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.No.544 of 2005 & 618/2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008 O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A.No. 503/2000 dated 31.12.2002, is before us in this revision petition. 2. In filing the revision, there is enormous delay. 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 31.12.2002 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 20.6.2003, and that, immediately on receipt, the S.T.Rev.No.292/2005 -2- same was sent to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Ernakulam for report, and, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for appeal/revision and it was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 20.6.2004. 5. It is further stated in the affidavit 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 fieldwork. It is also stated that, in addition to this, periodic review meetings 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 the remarks from the appellate order since the same was done after verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. 6. It is further submitted that, the letter of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes along with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office S.T.Rev.No.292/2005 -3- of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on 9.7.2004 for examining scope for appeal. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) due to court work and other drafting work was not able to take up the matter immediately. Since the Special Government Pleader (Taxes), having examined the entire matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed, has prepared the revision and it was sent for signature of the authorised representative. They have further stated that immediately thereafter the revision came to be filed along with an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to heavy workload in the office of the Commercial Taxes Department and 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 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 20.6.2003 and 9.7.2004, and also between 9.7.2004 and 17.6.2005 . Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of S.T.Rev.No.292/2005 -4- delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. 8. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 9. The question of law raised in this revision petition is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate matter. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS