IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 144 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. LAKSHMI WINES, PERAMBRA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/09/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.144 of 2005 &
C.M.Appln.Nos.278/2005 & 701/2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode
in T.A.No. 450/2002 dated 30th April, 2003.
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 532 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, firstly they have stated that the impugned orders passed
by the Tribunal, though it is dated 30.4.2003, was received by them only
on 24.6.2003 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint Commissioner
S.T.Rev.No. 144/2005 -2-
(Law), Ernakulam had distributed the certified copy of the orders passed
by the Tribunal in the office for examining whether an appeal/revision to
be filed against the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. It is further
stated that report was called for from the Sales Tax Officer, Perambra.
It is stated that remarks were received from the Sales Tax Officer,
Perambra and the report along with the files were forwarded to the office
of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having examined the files requested
the Advocate General to examine the scope for revision by letter dated
22.10.2003. It is further stated 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 1.7.2004. 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 same. However, the
Government Pleader could not draft all the revisions and many matters
were kept pending. Subsequently the term of the Government Pleader
was not extended. It is also stated that the files were again placed
S.T.Rev.No. 144/2005 -3-
before the Special Government Pleader. It is stated that after preparation
of the revision the same was signed on 17.2.2005 and entrusted to the
office of the Advocate General for filing. They have further stated that
immediately thereafter the revision came to be filed along with an
application for condonation of delay.
5. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due
to exigencies of work both at the offices of the Commercial Taxes
Department as also at the Office of the Advocate General. It is also
stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate.
6. 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 24.6.2003 and 22.10.2003, and also between
1.7.2004 and 7.3.2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision
petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for
condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are rejected.
7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
8. In view of the order passed in the revision petition, no
S.T.Rev.No. 144/2005 -4-
orders need be passed in I.A.No.1662/2008 and therefore it is closed.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS