Antony Dominic, J. This revision is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal in TA(VAT) No.321/10.
2. C.M.Appln.No.600/14 is filed to condone delay of 376 days in filing the revision. The delay is sought to be explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by stating thus;
“2. It is most humbly submitted that, the Order dated 17/12/12 passed by the Tribunal in T.A (VAT) No.321/2010 received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Law, Ernakulam on 27/4/13. The Joint Commissioner (Law) asked the concerned Commercial Tax Officer to give remarks in the matter. The Law Officer took some time to trace out the relevant records and study the matter. Thereafter, on 9.9.2013 the Commercial Tax Officer sent remarks to the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law).
3. It is humbly submitted that the office of the Joint Commissioner (Law) after perusing the relevant records and examining the scope of Revision in the matter forwarded the file to the office of the Advocate General through Deputy Commissioner (Law) for preparing and filing Revision on 20/3/2014. The said letter was received in the office of the Advocate General on 22.4.2014. The same was forwarded to the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for examining the scope of Revision and preparing Revision. The Special Government Pleader allotted the file to the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader sought certain clarifications from the department for further examining the scope of revision. The matter was discussed with the Assistant Commissioner (Law) on 9.7.14. Thereafter, on 10.7.14 the Government Pleader prepared the revision. The filing Section took some time for preparing paper book. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Advocate General for approval on 25.7.14. After obtaining the approval, the matter was sent to the filing section for filing on 30/7/14. Consequently, the Revision could be filed only on 6.8.14 causing a delay of 376 days.”
3. Reading of the above averments contained in the affidavit shows that substantial part of the delay has occurred only because of the negligence and callousness on the part of the various authorities of the department. When such is the case for delay, we feel it apposite to refer to the judgment in Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. [2012 (2) KLT SN 114 (C.No.112) SC], where the Apex Court has held thus;
“It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a Special Leave Petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. It is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-
tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”
If the above principles are applied, the only option available to this Court is to dismiss the application for delay. Accordingly, C.M.Appln.No.600/14 is dismissed. Consequently, the revision also will stand dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE