IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 347 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.M.A. BABY,
... 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 :11/12/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.347 of 2008 &
C.M.Appln.No.1055 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of December, 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-II, Ernakulam, in
T.A.No.300/2001 dated 31.1.2007
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 480 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 application for condoning
the delay, the applicant has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit it is stated
that, the order of the Tribunal passed on 31.01.2007 was received in the
office of the Joint Commissioner (Law), Ernakulam on 16.04.2005, and that,
immediately on receipt, the same was sent to the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry for report. It is stated that,
the Deputy Commissioner, after going through the files forwarded a report
based on which the Deputy Commissioner (General) requested the Advocate
General to examine the scope for revision.
S.T.Rev.No.347/2008 -2-
3. It is stated in the affidavit that, the report of the Deputy
Commissioner (General), Commercial Taxes was received in the office of the
Joint Commissioner (Law) on 28.10.2007. The above letter along with the
files were forwarded from the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) on
26.11.2007 to the office of the Advocate General and the matter was placed
before the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining scope for
appeal on 30.11.2007. It is stated that, due to court work and other drafting
work the files could not be taken up immediately. It is stated that, the said
Government Pleader was on long leave and hence the revision could not be
filed immediately. Subsequently, the files were again placed before the
Special Government Pleader on 15.10.2008. The Special Government
Pleader having examined the files and records was of the opinion that
Revision ought to be filed in the above matter and hence prepared a revision
and submitted the same for approval of the learned Additional Advocate
General. The learned Additional Advocate General having approved the
same sent it to the filing section on 6.11.2008.
4. It is stated in the affidavit that, Circle Offices are dealing
with multifarious work such as returns scrutiny, processing of VAT refund
S.T.Rev.No.347/2008 -3-
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.
5. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay was caused due to
exigencies of work. It is also stated that the delay is not wilful or deliberate.
6. 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
16.04.2005 and 26.11.2007, and also between 30.11.2007 and 06.11.2008.
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.
7. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected.
S.T.Rev.No.347/2008 -4-
8. 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