F.I. REBELLO, J.

The respondents are in the business of manufacturing synthetic adhesives and textile binders. They applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of rates of sales tax in respect of items as enumerated in the application. The Commissioner of Sales Tax by an order dated January 31, 1998 held that the items are covered by entry C-II 152, the residual entry liable to sales tax at 13 per cent. The respondents preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 36 of 1998 before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. By an order dated August 31, 2002, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the items as enumerated in para No. 3 hereinabove are covered under entry C-I and thus liable to sales tax at four per cent.

The applicant herein, thereafter applied by Reference Application No. 122 of 2002 to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal to frame the questions of law and refer them to this court. By order dated June 15, 2005, the Tribunal rejected the said Reference Application No. 122 of 2002.

The applicant aggrieved by the said order has preferred this application to this court. The application has been filed beyond the period of 90 days as required by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act. There is a motion for condonation of delay.

The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the court exercising jurisdiction to condone the delay. It is their submission that as there is no power in this court to condone the delay in making the application under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), the same is not maintainable and consequently has to be dismissed. The applicant, on the other hand, contends that the application is to the "court" and hence the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply.

The question for consideration is, whether section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable, when an application is moved under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 61 of the Act to this court.

At the threshold, we may point out that during the lifetime of the Act of 1959 till its repeal and substitution by the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, it appears that this question was not raised and consequently not decided by this court. Learned counsel pointed out that the court has been entertaining applications for condonation of delay in reference applications and there is no decided case law on this point. The issue, therefore, will have to be considered on the touchstone of the provisions of the Act and the law on limitation as understood till date in respect of this Act. In Mehta Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra [1981] 48 STC 398 (Bom), this court held that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to proceedings before a Tribunal as it was not a court. In Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. [2004] 122 Cases 683, the Supreme Court has held that the word exclusion also includes "exclusion by necessary implications".

To answer the issue, we may refer to some of the provisions which are required to be considered under the Act.

"Section 59. Application of sections 4 and 12 of Limitation Act. - In computing the period laid down under sections 55, 57, 61 the provisions of sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall, so far as may be, apply.

Section 60. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases. - An appellate authority may admit any appeal under section 55 after the period of limitation laid down in the said section, if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, when an appeal is preferred under section 55 after the period of limitation laid down in that section, the ground that the appellant came to know of any judgment, decision or order of any court, T