IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 242 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, FRESH ICE CREAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :26/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.242 of 2008 &
C.M.Appln.No.735 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 26th day of August, 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.230 of 2005 dated 28th March, 2006.
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. Along with the application for condoning the delay, the
applicant has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, the deponent has
stated that, the order of the Tribunal passed on 28.3.2006 was received in
the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 20.5.2006.
Immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
for report. The Assistant Commissioner after going through the files
forwarded a report dated 12.12.2006. It was formerly opined that there
was no scope for appeal based on which the files were closed.
S.T.Rev.No. 242/2008 -2-
However, later, report was again called for, and, based on the report
received on 22.03.2008 the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law)
forwarded their comments to the office of the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by letter
dated 1.4.2008 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) on 29.4.2008 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 1.5.2008. Due to
court work and other drafting work the files could not be taken up
immediately. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) having examined
the files was of the opinion that Revision ought to be filed in the above
matter and hence prepared a Revision and submitted the same for
approval. The section after receiving approval has taken some time in
preparing the paper book and filing the same before this Court.
4. It is stated 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 have to be examined
for sending a proposal. It is also stated that the Circle Offices are
S.T.Rev.No. 242/2008 -3-
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. 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 is done after verification of the entire files and also
discussion with higher authorities on legal issues. In the circumstances
there is some delay caused in forwarding the proposals for filing
Revision from the orders of the appellate authority. It is stated that the
delay is not wilful or deliberate. It is also stated that the delay in filing
the revision has occurred due to the procedural delay and exigencies of
work, both at the offices of the Commercial Taxes Department as also at
the Office of the Advocate General.
5. In the affidavit filed, the petitioner has not satisfactorily
explained the delay in getting the report from the Assistant
Commissioner, Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram whether to prefer an
appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. This
unexplained delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court,
S.T.Rev.No. 242/2008 -4-
much 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 satisfactorily explain the delay of about two years from
20.5.2006 to 29.4.2008 to decide whether a revision petition to be
filed against the orders passed by the Tribunal. In our opinion, this
unexplained delay is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, we cannot
accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the application
for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
6. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS