ORDER : Vinod Chandran, J. Three revisions with respect to three assessment years, respectively 2009-10, 2008-09 and 2010-11, raise the very same question of law, which is re-framed as follows: “Whether the power to condone the delay in filing an application for refund under Section 13 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['KVAT Act' for brevity]; is regulated by the prescription under Rule 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 ['KVAT Rules' for brevity] or only to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 20A of the Act?” 2. The assessee is an exporter, who had made some purchases for the purpose of export and made an application, though delayed, for input tax credit under Section 13. The Assessing Officer found that the delay can be condoned only by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 20A. The Assessing officer also found that the documents in its entirety were not produced as provided under Rule 47. The first appellate authority agreed with the Assessing Officer on the aspect of power to condone delay and also affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer with respect to the deficiency in and the lack of proper documents. The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the assessee on the ground that only the Deputy Commissioner has the power to condone such delay. 3. Sri. Rajesh Nambiar, learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the prescription under Rule 47 specifically confers power on the Assessing Officer to condone delay. In such circumstances, there is no requirement to approach the Deputy Commissioner. It is also pointed out that the Assessing Officer as also the Tribunal failed to verify the documents and made a perfunctory statement as to the defects in certain documents and absence of others. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that even if on the aspect of delay the revisions are allowed, there would be no purpose served by a remand insofar as the documents were not properly filed. 5. There is some dispute as to whether the documents filed were proper or not, which requires a detailed examination if the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. We agree with the learned Counsel for the assessee that the first appellate authority and the Assessing Officer had made perfunctory statements with reference to the documents filed and the Tribunal did not look at it at all. We agree with the learned Counsel for the assessee that the first appellate authority and the Assessing Officer had made perfunctory statements with reference to the documents filed and the Tribunal did not look at it at all. In fact, all the authorities having specifically found that the delay can be condoned only by the Deputy commissioner; if we find otherwise, the original authority, Assessing Officer, would have to necessarily consider it afresh, being the authority conferred with such power to be exercised at the first instance. 6. Section 13 speaks of refund of input tax in the case of export or inter-state sale. Sub-section (2) enumerates the various situations in which such refund can be claimed 'in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed' (sic). The prescription is made in the Rules at Rule 47, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “R.47 Refund of input tax in case of sale or purchase of goods in the course of export:- (1) Every dealer who claims a refund under section 13 shall submit an application in Form No.21C to the assessing authority concerned not later than one year from the date on which the goods have been exported. Along with the application the dealer shall also submit the following- (i) a copy of the Exporter's copy or Export Promotion copy of the shipping Bill, Air way Bill or similar document evidencing export of the goods, duly certified by the Customs authorities; (ii) a certificate from the Bank to prove receipt of payment from the foreign buyer. (iii) Declarations in form No.21J from the dealer who collected the tax in respect of which refund is claimed except where such refund in respect of input tax in relation to goods held as opening stock on the date of commencement of the Act and goods purchased from unregistered dealers in the State. A single declaration shall be sufficient for all purchases made from a dealer during a month. (iv) Declarations in form H prescribed under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and turnover) Rules, 1957 where the sale by the dealer claiming refund falls under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956). Provided that the assessing authority may condone, for reasons to be recorded in writing, any delay in the filing of the statement or other documents aforesaid”. 7. Provided that the assessing authority may condone, for reasons to be recorded in writing, any delay in the filing of the statement or other documents aforesaid”. 7. The Rule prescribes that an application should be filed in Form No.21C to the Assessing Officer within one year from the date on which the goods have been exported along with copies of documents as specified in clauses (i) to (iv). Pausing here, we have to notice that it has already been held in the assessee's case that the declaration in Form-H is not required since he is an exporter himself. Hence, the requirement would be an application along with documents at clauses (i) to (iii) within a period of one year. The proviso speaks of delay condonation, which power is conferred on the assessing authority and takes in a delay in filing a statement or documents aforesaid. As we noticed, sub-rule (1) of Rule 47 speaks only of an application and the documents enumerated under clauses (i) to (iv). The statement, hence, can be a reference only to the application and, hence, necessarily as per the rules the assessing authority has to consider the aspect of condonation of delay. 8. Section 20A has been brought in by an amendment made to the KVAT Act with effect from 01.04.2008. Section 20A is an enabling provision, where the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with the power to condone the delay in applications for refund under the Act and the Rules if limitation is provided. This enabling provision would be applicable only in circumstances where no other officer has been specifically conferred with the power to condone the delay in filing an application for refund. Section 13 speaks of refund being permitted 'in such manner and subject to such conditions as has been prescribed'. The prescription as found in Rule 47 specifically empowers the Assessing Officer to condone the delay in filing the statement (application) or other documents referred to in clauses (i) to (iv). When a clear prescription has been made as per the statutory provision, Section 20A has no application and in such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner cannot usurp the powers of the Assessing Officer who has been conferred with the power to condone delay in filing applications. When a clear prescription has been made as per the statutory provision, Section 20A has no application and in such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner cannot usurp the powers of the Assessing Officer who has been conferred with the power to condone delay in filing applications. Section 20A, in view of the conferment of power to condone delay, by the statutory rules, on the Assessing Officer; is inapplicable to the applications made under Section 13. We answer the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. In the context of the declaration of law made by us, the Assessing Officer would have to consider the issue afresh. If the reasons stated for the delay are found to be satisfactory, necessarily the documents would have to be examined. We make it clear that there would be no further submission of documents and the assessee would only be permitted to prepare a statement of the specific transactions evidenced from the shipping bills produced with reference to the purchases for which refund is claimed. We also make it clear that there can be no consideration of xerox copies and the documents as required under clauses (i) to (iii) should have been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer for the claim of refund to be accepted. With the above observation, we allow the revision and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs.