ORDER DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. The State has filed this application under section 70(2) of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act"), and prayed for quashing of the impugned order (annexure P1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") and further prayed for direction to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for our opinion : "(i) Whether the learned Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur erred in rejecting the application under section 70 of the Act, submitted before it, on the ground of limitation ? (ii) Whether the learned Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur erred in rejecting the reference application submitted before it on merits holding that the proposed question submitted before it was mixed question of fact and law ?" Shri Rajendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the State/petitioner, submitted that the order of assessment was passed against the respondent imposing tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 2,13,169. The respondent raised an objection that the provisions of section 9B of the Act will not be applicable to him as the assessee deals in tax-paid goods and is not liable to pay tax under section 9(1) of the Act and therefore, the provisions of section 9B, as existing before April 1, 1999, were not applicable. However, the said objection was rejected by the assessing officer. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Commissioner, Commercial Tax, and the objection against the imposition of value added tax (in short, "the VAT") was rejected. However, the Board of Revenue, vide order dated January 23, 2002 (annexure P4), allowed the appeal and held that since it is undisputed that there is no tax liability of the assessee under section 9, therefore, the imposition of VAT under section 9B of the Act, as existed at the relevant time, was not correct. The Revenue's application under section 70(1) for referring the question of law arising out of the order of the appellate authority along with statement of case to the High Court, has been further dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by law of limitation. Shri Agrawal argued that the question of law proposed by the Revenue was purely a legal question having far-reaching effect on revenue augmentation. Shri Agrawal argued that the question of law proposed by the Revenue was purely a legal question having far-reaching effect on revenue augmentation. The Tribunal, without adverting to the merits of the case, has summarily rejected the application on a technical ground that though Shri B. S. Otti, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, has submitted his affidavit showing reasons for delay in filing this application for reference, however, in the absence of any application for condonation of delay, the affidavit cannot be entertained, and the reasons assigned in the affidavit are also not satisfactory. Thus, considering the inordinate delay of more than two years in filing application for reference, the application has been rejected. Therefore, looking to the importance of the question of law proposed by the Revenue, it was appropriate that the same is finally decided by the High Court. On the other hand, Shri R. P. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that a dealer, who is dealing in tax-paid goods and not having any taxable turnover is not liable for VAT during May 1, 1997 and March 31, 1999 as section 9B, which was inserted into the statute vide Amendment Act of 1997, specifically provides that tax was imposable only on such dealers, who were liable to pay tax under section 9 and whose turnover in the preceding year exceeded rupees one crore. Since the assessee, admittedly, deals in tax-paid goods and not liable to pay tax under section 9, no VAT under section 9B, as existed at the relevant period, can be imposed on him as existing section 9B came into force only with effect from April 1, 1999. He further argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for reference and the Revenue filed the application without any application for condonation of delay and in these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the prayer for reference under section 70 of the Act on the ground of delay. He further argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for reference and the Revenue filed the application without any application for condonation of delay and in these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the prayer for reference under section 70 of the Act on the ground of delay. On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the respective parties and further considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the reference application on the ground of inordinate delay of more than two years, without expressing our opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, and we hold that the reference application has been rightly rejected on the ground of delay by the Tribunal. The instant application for reference is, accordingly, rejected.