IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 255 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.M.DASAN
... 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 :16/09/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.255 of 2008 &
C.M.Appln.No.833 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 16th 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 Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.No.144/2006 & C.O.17/2006 dated
20th January, 2007.
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 300 days.
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 it is stated that, the
order of the Tribunal dated 20.1.2007 was received in the office of the
Joint Commissioner of Law only on 19.3.2007. It is stated that since the
Intelligence Officer, Investigation, Thrissur has completed the
assessment, the said officer was required to furnish the details of the
assessments and also his opinion. It is stated that on receipt of the
opinion from the assessing authority, the order of the Tribunal was
S.T.Rev.No. 255 of 2008 -2-
placed before the office of the Advocate General on 6.8.2007 for legal
opinion.
4. It is further stated that the order of the Tribunal was
placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for legal opinion
and scope for filing a Tax Revision Case on 6.8.2007. It is stated that
meanwhile the office of the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) was
vacant due to resignation. On 20.8.2007, the Government appointed
three Government Pleaders for conducting the tax cases and the file then
submitted before the newly appointed Government Pleaders (Taxes) on
21.8.2007. Considering the entire facts and consideration of the case and
legal position, the Government Pleader suggested the scope for revision
and instructed the Department to make available the back records of the
case. It is further stated that since the impugned order relates to
altogether 37 appeals, the assessing authority has to trace out the files
regarding the assessment proceedings against each one of the dealers and
also to prepare the reports. The records made available by the assessing
authority was forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader on
29.9.2007.
5. It is also stated in the affidavit that, since there were
altogether 37 appeals against which the impugned common order was
S.T.Rev.No. 255 of 2008 -3-
passed by the Tribunal, detailed examinations of the assessment records
were highly necessary to prepare the tax revision case. It is further stated
that the Government Pleader, while preparing the Tax Revision, took
some time because of overcrowding of case files in his office. Along
with the administrative work, he was entrusted the regular court works
also. It is also stated that the section consumed some time for
preparation of paper books with memorandum of revision, assessment
order, first appellate order and also the impugned Tribunal order and
submitted the paper books for signature of the Government Pleader on
10.10.2007. After signature of the paper book, the file was submitted the
learned Additional Advocate General for approval. After obtaining the
approval, 20 revisions were filed on 17.10.2007. However by oversight
17 revisions were omitted to be filed. The present revision is filed only
on 9.4.2008. It is also stated that delay is not wilful or deliberate.
6. 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 occurred between 19.3.2007 and 6.8.2007 and also between
17.10.2007 and 9.4.2008. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision
S.T.Rev.No. 255 of 2008 -4-
petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for
condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS