IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 304 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.K.LATEX & RUBBER
... 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 :17/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No. 304 of 2008 &
C.M.Appln.No.984 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th 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, Additional Bench, Palakkad
in T.A.No.575/2004 dated 14.6.2006.
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 587 days.
Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to
condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Along with the said
application an affidavit is filed before us. In the said affidavit, they
have stated that the order of the Tribunal passed on 14.6.2006 was
received in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on
1.11.2006, and, that, immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the
office of the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), Special Circle, Thrissur
for report. Based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.),
the Deputy Commissioner (General) Commercial Taxes,
Thiruvananthapuram by letter dated 16.4.2007 requested the Advocate
General to examine the scope for appeal/revision. It is stated that the
above letter along with the connected files were forwarded from the
S.T.Rev.No. 304/2008 -2-
office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on 16.5.2007 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
24.5.2007. It is stated that the Special Government Pleader having
examined the matter was of the opinion that revision ought to be filed
and hence prepared the revision and submitted the same for approval of
the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Additional
Advocate General having approved the same, has sent it to the filing
section for filing on 18.9.2008.
3. 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 proposals
for filing revision. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was
S.T.Rev.No. 304/2008 -3-
caused due to exigencies of work. It is also stated that the delay is not
wilful or deliberate.
4. 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 1.11.2006 and 16.5.2007, and also between 24.5.2007
and 18.9.2008. 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.
5. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
6. 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