IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 339 of 2006()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE &
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No. 339 of 2006 &
C.M.Appln.No.792/2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th 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 Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Additional Bench, Palakkad, in T.A.No.532/2003 dated 7.11.2003.
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 830 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 7.11.2003 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner
(Law), Ernakulam on 22.3.2004 and that, immediately on receipt, the
S.T.Rev.No.339/2006 -2-
same was distributed in the office for examining scope of revision and
report was called for from the Sales Tax Officer, Thrissur. The report
along with the files were forwarded to the Commissionerate,
Thiruvananthapuram and the said office requested the Advocate General
to examine the scope for revision by letter dated 16.11.2005.
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.339/2006 -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 of revision on 29.11.2005. 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 term 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 3.8.2006 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.339/2006 -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 22.3.2004 and 16.11.2005, and also between
29.11.2005 and 28.9.2006. 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