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 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 S.T.Rev..No.167 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 15.09.2003 IN T.A.NO.55/2003 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------- M/S. HILL TOP, KUNNATHANGADI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ----------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.167 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.Nos.314 of 2005 & 675 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2008 ORDER 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.55 of 2003 dated 15th September, 2003. 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, firstly they have stated that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, though it is dated 15th September, 2003, was received by them only on 29th March, 2004 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam had distributed the certified copy of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the office for examining whether an S.T.Rev.167/2005 - 2 - appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the same was also forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thrissur for his remarks. It is further stated that based on the remarks received from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thrissur dated 29.5.2004, the files were sent to the Deputy Commissioner (General) Thiruvananthapuram and, thereafter the Deputy Commissioner (General) requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for filing an appeal/revision. The aforesaid communication, along with the connected files, were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate General only on 18.06.2004. The files were placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for appeal/revision on 9.7.2004. Since the Special Government Pleader was busy with Court work and other draf6ting work, the files could not be taken up immediately and, thereafter, since the Special Government Pleader was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed in the matter, the same was prepared on 17.2.2005 and filed on 15.3.2005, along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. In the affidavit filed, the explanation offered by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the revision, especially for the period from 9.7.2004 to 15.3.2005, is wholly unsatisfactory. This unexplained delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court, much S.T.Rev.167/2005 - 3 - less a Court which is entertaining a revision petition. We do not mean that the Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to explain the long delay occurred in the office of the Advocate General. In our opinion, this unexplained delay is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, we cannot accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected. 6. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-