The State Of Kerala vs. M/S.Akshaya Jewellers

The assessment order was passed on 31.10.2014. An appeal was filed by the assessee, which the first appellate authority allowed partly, on 10.02.2016. There were some issues which were not decided in favour of the assessee and, hence, a further appeal was taken by the assessee, to the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order in the second appeal, allowing the same on 30.08.2016. Going by the affidavit submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, this order was received on 14.11.2016; from which the date computation of limitation commences. Admittedly there was no revision filed from the order of the Tribunal till the present revision was filed, with a delay of more than 647 days.

In explanation of the delay, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax relies on the proceedings taken by the AO for rectifying an apparent mistake that occurred in the order of the AO, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. The mistake was only insofar as the TIN number having not been properly quoted by the AO, the first - 3 - appellate authority and the Tribunal. The AO noticed this mistake and rectified its record on 18.02.2017. The AO also took up proceedings for rectification of the appellate orders. We see that the order of the first appellate authority was sought to be rectified by the AO after one year of his order, by a letter dated 16.03.2018 which was corrected by order dated 03.04.2018 at Annexure-B. There was a subsequent rectification application filed before the Tribunal also, which resulted in the Tribunal also passing a rectified order on 26.06.2018. 4. In fact, the proceedings taken by the AO was not at all relevant for filing a revision from the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2016. It is also pertinent that it was not the AO's duty to file an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner (Law) is the proper person to decide as to whether an appeal is to be filed or not. On arriving at such an opinion, the Deputy Commissioner usually makes a request to the Advocate General's office, on which the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) takes a call as to whether the appeal has to be filed or not.

For all we know, the Deputy Commissioner (Law) would not have been apprised of the proceedings taken by the AO; nor is that necessary. A mistake in TIN number - 4 - would not disentitle the filing of a revision before this Court. The filing of an appeal is also the responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner (Law) and not of the AO. The delay that occurred in making a rectification by the AO is absolutely irrelevant for filing a revision before this Court from the order of the Tribunal. We do not see any explanation for the delay having been occasioned at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. In the light of the above reasoning, the application for delay condition is rejected and as a consequence so is the revision. The question of law raised in the revision is left open. K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE ASHOK MENON JUDGE - 5 - APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.10.2014. ANNEXURE BOF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10.02.2016 WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY ORDER DATED 03.04.2018. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2016 WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY TRIBUNAL DATED 26.06.2018. Vku/- []