JUDGMENT G. T. NANAVATI, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this Court for its decision : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reliance placed by the applicant upon an earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat in Second Appeal No. 323 of 1974 as decided on January 30, 1975, for the purpose of not filing the two relevant second appeals before this Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation, could not and did not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under section 71 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in not condoning the applicant's delay in (sic) before it, after the Gujarat High Court had reversed the aforesaid earlier decision of this Tribunal ?" Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is carrying on business of manufacturing and selling electric motors. During accounting years, December 1, 1972 to November 30, 1973 and December 1, 1973 to November 30, 1974, the assessee had purchased certain raw materials, processing materials or consumable stores locally from registered dealers on payment of tax and had used them in the manufacture of electric motors a taxable goods for sale. The applicant had sold certain quantity of electric motors locally within the State of Gujarat, and also in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The assessee had also sold certain other quantity of electric motors on consignment basis outside the State of Gujarat. In respect of both the periods, the assessee had claimed set-off of tax paid under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 on the purchases of the raw materials, processing materials or consumable stores, which it had used in the manufacture of electric motors which were sold by it either locally or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Sales Tax Officer allowed (sic) the assessee's claim on the ground that the amount of sale price of the consigned goods sold outside the State of Gujarat, as worked out on the basis of the relevant proviso to rule 42 of the Rules had exceeded the amount of set-off of tax which the applicant had claimed in respect of the two periods. Against the two separate orders passed in respect of two different periods, the assessee filed two first appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Both the appeals were dismissed on April 11, 1977. Meanwhile the Tribunal on January 30, 1975 in another case of Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat had taken the same view as was taken by the Sales Tax Officer and, therefore, the assessee chose not to prefer second appeal against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries was reversed by this Court on December 15, 1978 ([1982] 49 STC 322 (Guj)). On coming to know about that decision, the assessee, within a short time, i.e., on December 31, 1978, preferred two second appeals to the Tribunal and also applied for condonation of delay in filing the said appeals. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The assessee then moved the Tribunal for referring the said two questions to this Court. In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax the Tribunal had referred similar questions to this Court. By our judgment dated March 15/18, 1991 ([1992] 87 STC 266 (Guj)), we have held that such a cause cannot be regarded as sufficient cause and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in not condoning the delay on such a ground. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, that is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.