IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 170 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. KING SHOE MART, ERNAKULAM.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.JACOB THOMAS
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.
-----------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.170 of 2005 &
C.M.Appln.Nos.324 of 2005 & 707 of 2008
------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2008
ORDER
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the
Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-I, Ernakulam in
T.A.No.972 of 2000 dated 20th February, 2001.
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. 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 20.02.2001, was received by the Joint
Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam only on 8.5.2001 and, thereafter, it is
stated that the Joint Commissioner (Law) had distributed the certified copy
of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the office for examining whether an
S.T.Rev.170/2005
– 2 –
appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned orders passed by the
Tribunal and the same was forwarded to the office of the Assistant
Commissioner, Special Circle-II, Ernakulam. Based on the report submitted
by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, as
per letter dated 21.5.2001, requested the Advocate General to examine the
scope for filing an appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal.
The aforesaid letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the
office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate
General on 5.6.2001 and the matter was placed before the Special
Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope for filing an
appeal/revision on 11.6.2001. Since the Special Government Pleader was
busy with Court work and other drafting work, the files could not be taken
up immediately. Since the Special Government Pleader was of the opinion
that revision ought to be filed in the matter, the same was prepared on
20.5.2004 and filed on 27.5.2004, along with an application for condonation
of delay.
5. In the affidavit filed, the explanation offered for the
enormous delay occurred in the office of the Advocate General between
11.6.2001 and 27.5.2004 is not at all satisfactory and such delay, in our
opinion, cannot be condoned by any Court, much less a Court which is
entertaining a revision petition. We do not mean that the Revenue has to
S.T.Rev.170/2005
– 3 –
explain each day’s delay. But, they are supposed to explain the delay that
occurred in the office of the Advocate General for about three years. In our
opinion, this unexplained delay is fatal to the proceedings. Therefore, we
cannot accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the
applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and they are
rejected.
6. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
Judge
vku/-