IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 256 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DEPUTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. COCHIN SHIPLYARD LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :.
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.256 of 2005 &
C.M.Appln.Nos. 473 of 2005 & 619 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, Additional Bench, Ernakulam
in T.A.No.501 of 2000 dated 31st December, 2002.
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 31st December, 2002 was received by
them only on 20th June, 2003 and, thereafter, it is stated that the Joint
S.T.Rev.No.256/2005 -2-
Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam, had called for the report from the
Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Ernakulam. It is further stated
that they received the report from the Assistant Commissioner on
20-6-2004 based on which the office of the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes by letter requested the Advocate General to examine
the scope for filing appeal/revision.. The aforesaid communication along
with the connected files were forwarded from the office of the Joint
Commissioner (Law) to the office of the Advocate General and the
matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on
9.7.2004 for examining the scope for appeal. The Special Government
Pleader (Taxes) having examined the entire matter was of the opinion
that Revision ought to be filed in the above matter and hence prepared a
Revision. The Revision was sent for signature of the authorised
representative who signed it on 12-1-2005. After obtaining the signature
the section has taken some time in preparing the paper book and filing
the same before this Court. It is stated that the delay occurred due to the
heavy work load in the office of the Commercial Taxes Department and
also the office of the Advocate General.
S.T.Rev.No.256/2005 -3-
5. It is further stated that the Circle Offices are dealing
with multifarious work such as returns scrutiny, processing of VAT
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.
6. In the affidavit filed, two things are clear. Firstly, the
petitioner has not explained the delay in getting the report, from the
Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Ernakulam, whether to prefer an
appeal/revision against the orders passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, for
the delay between 20.6.2003 till 20.6.2004, there is no explanation
whatsoever. This unexplained delay, in our opinion, cannot be condoned
S.T.Rev.No.256/2005 -4-
by any Court, 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 explain the delay of one year in sending the paper
from Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam to Advocate General’s
Office. 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.
7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS