Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs R.K.Latex & Rubber Dealer on 16 September, 2008
Bench: H.L.Dattu, A.K.Basheer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST.Rev..No. 259 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.K.LATEX & RUBBER DEALER,
... 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 :16/09/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.259 of 2008 &
C.M.Appln.No.840 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 16th day of September, 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.574/2004 dated 14th June, 2006.
2. In filing the revision, there is a delay of 568 days. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.
3. 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 dated 14.6.2006 was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner of Law only on 10.11.2006. It is stated that the order of the Tribunal was placed before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for further action and as per letter dated 16.4.2007, the Deputy Commissioner (General) advised the Joint Commissioner of Law to place the order of the Tribunal and connected records to the office of the Advocate General for obtaining a legal opinion regarding the scope for filing Sales Tax Revision. It is stated that the Tribunal did not follow the dictum laid down by this Court in Kurian Abraham's case. S.T.Rev.No.259/2008 -2- It is further stated that, subsequent to the original appellate order dated 14.6.2006 the Tribunal recalled its order as per order dated 22.1.2007. That order was challenged by the respondent/assessee in WP(C) No.15898/2007 and connected cases wherein this Court dismissed the writ petition as per judgment dated 28.5.2007. It is stated that the respondent/assessee filed Writ Appeal No.1478/2007 and connected cases. This Court remanded the matter to the Single Judge for fresh consideration of the issue by setting aside the judgment dated 28.5.2007. The matter was again re-heard by the Single Judge and as per judgment dated 7.8.2007 the Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
4. It is further stated in the affidavit that in response to the letter dated 16.4.2007 of the Deputy Commissioner (General) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes the file was placed before the then Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for legal opinion on 24.5.2007. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) opined that there is no scope to file revision against the order of the Tribunal. The Government not satisfied with the legal opinion, re-submitted the case file to the Advocate General on 26.6.2007 and thereafter with a reminder dated 23.7.2007. During this time, against the judgment of this Court in Kurians Abraham's case, the State filed SLP before the Supreme Court and the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. S.T.Rev.No.259/2008 -3-
5. It is further stated that the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) as per letter dated 1.2.2008 again reminded the necessity of filing a Sales Tax Revision Case challenging the order of the Tribunal, as substantial loss was occurred to the State revenue due to the erroneous finding of the Tribunal. In response to the said reminder, the file was placed before the Senior Government Pleader (Taxes) on 4.2.2008 and the same was forwarded to the Government Pleader (Taxes) on 5.2.2008. It is further stated that, in view of the earlier legal opinion stating that there is no scope for filing revision, the Government Pleader (Taxes) called for the records from the assessing authority for a detailed scrutiny. Thereafter the Government Pleader opined that there is scope for filing Revision Case and has prepared draft of the memorandum of Revision on 28.3.2008. It is stated that in the meanwhile the Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed against the judgment in Kurian Abraham's case.
6. It is further stated that thereafter some delay has occurred in filing the tax revision case as the concerned Government Pleader was not in station due to medical reasons till 7.7.2008. On 8.7.2008 the concerned Government Pleader rejoined the office and instructed the section to prepare the memorandum of revision. The section took some time to prepare paper books and paper books were S.T.Rev.No.259/2008 -4- prepared on 28.8.2008 and submitted to the Government Pleader for signature on 28.8.2008 and thereafter the revision was filed on 29.8.2008. It is stated that the delay has occurred due to administrative reasons in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and also in the office of the Advocate General.
7. The explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in filing the Sales Tax Revision case is wholly unsatisfactory. We do not mean that the Revenue has to explain each day's delay. But, they are supposed to satisfactorily explain the delay that has occurred between 10.11.2006 and 16.4.2007 and also between 24.5.2007 and 29.8.2008. 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.
8. Consequently the revision petition is also rejected. Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS