( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been directed against a common order dated 31st January,2001 of respondent No. 1 dismissing the petitioner s applications being reference No. 13-14-15-16/sii/97 under Section 45 (1) of Delhi Sales Tax Act (in short DST Act), being barred by limitation.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner, dealing in the business of picture tubes, was being assessed under the Local and Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment order pertaining to assessment year 1984-85 (L and C) had been framed on 31st March, 1989. As the petitioner had failed to produce the statutory forms during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority had created additional demand in the sum of Rs. 5,20,116/- under the Local Act and rs. 14,817. 60 paise under the Central Act for the said assessment year. Similarly, the Assessing Authority raised additional tax demand with regard to the assessment year 1985-86 vide its order dated 30th march, 1990. The demand under the Local Sales Tax Act was raised primarily on the ground that ST-1 Forms In respect of the sales made to the registered dealers, were not furnished and certain forms which were submitted were found defective. Aggrieved by the assessment orders for the two assessment years i. e. 1984-85 and 1985-86, petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Sales tax, the First Appellate Authority. The Additional commissioner of Sales Tax did not allow the production of st-1 Forms and c Forms as it did not find sufficient cause for non-production of the same before the Assessing authority. Having failed before the Additional commissioner of Sales Tax, petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax. Appeals pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 were dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the tribunal) vide its order dated 5th November ,1996 whereas the appeals pertaining to the assessment year 1985-86 were dismissed vide order dated 2nd July,1996. It is against these two orders that the petitioner filed reference applications under Section 45 (1) of DST Act for referring the case to the High Court on the questions of law arising out of the said orders. The Tribunal after considering the respective pleas of the parties and taking note of Rule 46 and Section 27 of the General clauses Act, rejected the reference applications vide its common order dated 31st January,2001 on the ground of limitation, while observing that he would have considered the petitioner s case for condonation of delay, but, for the. reasons that under the scheme of Section 45 of the dst Act, he did not have powers to condone the delay within 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. B. B. Ahuja, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri H. C. Bhatia, standing counsel for the department.

( 4 ) AS per Section 45 (1) of DST Act, any dealer aggrieved of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may by a written application seek reference to the High court on question of law arising from the said order within 60 days from the date of the order. The Appellate tribunal, if satisfied, that the dealer was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within 60 days from the date of the order, may allow the same to be presented within a further period not exceeding 30 days. The petitioner s case is that the orders dated 2nd july,1996 pertaining to the assessment year 1985-86 and order dated 5th November,1996 for the assessment year 1984-85, of the Tribunal were not communicated to it and the copies of the orders were for the first time received from the office of the Tribunal on 24th June, 1997, on its application dated 21st March,1997.

( 5 ) THE respondents case is that hearing of the appeals pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 was completed by October,1996 and the hearing o