IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 246 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DEPUTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., ERNAKULAM.
... 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 :11/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.246 of 2005 &
C.M.Appln.Nos.453/2005 & 585/2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
State, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T.A.No.
500/2000 dated 31.12.2002, is before us in this revision petition.
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, they have stated that, the order of the Tribunal passed
on 31.12.2002 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner
(Law), Ernakulam on 20.6.2003, and that, immediately on receipt, the
S.T.Rev.No.246/2005 -2-
same was sent to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Special
Circle, Ernakulam for report, and, based on the report of the Assistant
Commissioner, the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by
letter requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for
appeal/revision and it was received in the office of the Joint
Commissioner (Law) on 20.6.2004.
5. It is further stated in the affidavit 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 fieldwork. It is
also stated that, 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 was done after
verification of the entire files and also discussion with higher authorities
on legal issues.
6. It is further submitted that, the letter of the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes along with the connected files were
forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) to the office
S.T.Rev.No.246/2005 -3-
of the Advocate General and the matter was placed before the Special
Government Pleader (Taxes) on 9.7.2004 for examining scope for
appeal. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) due to court work and
other drafting work was not able to take up the matter immediately. It is
stated that, since the Special Government Pleader (Taxes), having
examined the entire matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be
filed, has prepared the revision and it was sent for signature of the
authorised representative. They have further stated that immediately
thereafter the revision came to be filed along with an application for
condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was
caused due to heavy workload in the office of the Commercial Taxes
Department and also at the Office of the Advocate General. It is also
stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate.
7. 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 20.6.2003 and 9.7.2004, and also between 9.7.2004
and 16.5.2005 . Therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot
be condoned by us. Accordingly the applications for condonation of
S.T.Rev.No.246/2005 -4-
delay require to be rejected and they are rejected.
8. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
9. The question of law raised in this revision petition is
kept open to be agitated in an appropriate matter.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS