IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 160 of 2005()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE JOINT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.HOTEL KAVERI, MUKKADA, KUNDARA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)
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.160 of 2005 &
C.M.Appln.Nos.308 of 2005 & 670 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, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.No.284
of 2000 dated 13th July, 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 13th July, 2001, was received by the Joint
Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam only on 12th October, 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
S.T.Rev.160/2005
– 2 –
examining whether an appeal/revision to be filed against the impugned
orders passed by the Tribunal and a report was called for from the Sales Tax
Officer, Kundara. It is further stated that the papers were then forwarded to
the office of the Deputy Commissioner (General), Thiruvananthapuram on
10.9.2002 for remarks. It is further stated that the remarks along with the
connected files were forwarded from the office of the Deputy Commissioner
(General), Thiruvananthapuram to the office of the Advocate General on
24.9.2002 and the matter was placed before the Special Government Pleader
(Taxes) for examining the scope for filing an appeal/revision on 24.10.2002.
Since the Government Pleader was busy with Court work and other drafting
work, the files could not be taken up immediately. Though the matter was
assigned to some other Government Pleader for drafting, he could not draft
the revision and, thereafter, since the Special Government Pleader was of
the opinion that revision ought to be filed in the matter, the same was
prepared on 28.2.2005 and filed on 7.3.2005, along with an application for
condonation of delay.
5. In the affidavit filed, two things are clear. Firstly, the
petitioner has not explained the delay in getting the report, from the Sales
Tax Officer, Kundara, whether to prefer an appeal/revision against the
orders passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the explanation offered for the
delay occurred in the office of the Advocate General between 24.10.2002
S.T.Rev.160/2005
– 3 –
and 7.3.2005 is not at all satisfactory. This unexplained 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
explain each day’s delay. But, they are supposed to explain the delay in
sending the papers from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law),
Ernakulam to the Advocate General’s Office, coupled with the enormous
delay happened in the office of the Advocate General. 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/-