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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 ST.Rev..No.395 of 2005 ----------------------------------- (T.A.NO.677/2003 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (ORDER DATED 30.7.2004) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONR (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S. AKAY FLAVOURS & AROMATICS LTD., NALLANIKUNNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.MITHUN MARKOS THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.395 of 2005 & C.M.Appln.No.812/2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of November, 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, Thiruvananthapuram, in T.A.No.677/2003 dated 30.7.2004. 2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 292 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 30.7.2004 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 30.9.2004 and that, immediately on receipt, the same was distributed in the office for examining scope of appeal and S.T.Rev.No.395/2005 -2- report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Pathanamthitta. The report dated 15.1.2005 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 28.2.2005. 5. It is stated in the affidavit that, there is some delay in preparing the report by the concerned officers since the proposals for appeal are made in addition to regular work and the entire records had 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 stated that, 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 above circumstances, the assessing authorities are taking some time to forward 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 also caused in transmitting the files from one office to another. S.T.Rev.No.395/2005 -3- 6. It is also stated in the affidavit that, the 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 the scope for appeal on 4.5.2005. It is stated that, due to court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) assigned the files to a Government Pleader for drafting the revision. It is stated that the Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters were kept pending. Subsequently, the terms of the Government Pleader was not extended. It is also stated that, considering the pendency of a number of cases and the situation of alarming delay in filing the revision petitions, 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 who having examined the same was of the opinion that a revision ought to be filed. After preparation of the revision the same was signed on 28.9.2005 and entrusted to the office of the Advocate General for filing. 7. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to exigencies of work both at the offices of the Commercial Taxes S.T.Rev.No.395/2005 -4- Department as also at the Office of the Advocate General. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate. 8. 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 30.9.2004 and 15.1.2005, and also between 4.5.2005 and 17.10.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 9. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. 10. The question of law raised in the revision petition is left open to be agitated in an appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS