IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 388 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.AKAY FLAVOURS & AROMATICS LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :12/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.388 OF 2005 &
C.M.Appln.No.789/2005
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in
T.A.No.494/2003 dated 30.7.2004.
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 281 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 30.7.2004 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner
(Law), Ernakulam on 30.9.2004 and that, immediately on receipt, the
same was distributed in the office for examining scope of appeal and
S.T.Rev.No.388/2005 -2-
report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes, Pathanamthitta. The report dated 15.1.2005 along with the files
were forwarded to the Secretary, Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram and the
said office requested the Advocate General to examine the scope for
appeal by letter dated 28.2.2005.
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.388/2005 -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 for appeal on 4.5.2005. 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 terms 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 28.9.2005 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.388/2005 -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 30.9.2004 and 15.1.2005, and also between 4.5.2005
and 6.10.2005. 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