K.A Swami, C.J:— At the stage of admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) was directed to take notice for respondent, and accordingly, she has entered appearance for respondent. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the tax case (revision) is admitted and is taken up for final disposal.
2. This tax case (revision) is preferred against an order dated April 4, 1994, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai in M.T.M.P No. 56 of 1994 in M.T.A No. 326 of 1993.
3. The said M.T.M.P No. 56 of 1994 was filed for condoning the delay of 193 days in filing the petition for enhancement. The said enhancement petition ought to have been filed on August 6, 1993, whereas it was filed on February 16, 1994. From the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condoning the delay, we find that the said delay of 193 days in filing the petition for enhancement has not been explained. Instead of directing the respondent to explain the delay by filing an additional affidavit, the Tribunal has given its own reasons for condoning the delay in filing the petition for enhancement. It is for the party concerned to explain the reasons for delay and it is not the function of the court to find the cause for the delay. The court has to examine, whether sufficient cause has been shown by the party for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. In these circumstances, we are of the view, that an opportunity has to be given to the State/respondent to explain the delay by filing an additional affidavit before the Tribunal.
4. We, accordingly, allow this revision and set aside the order of the Tribunal in M.T.M.P No. 56 of 1994 in M.T.A No. 326 of 1993 dated April, 4, 1994 and remit the petition M.T.M.P No. 56 of 1994 to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai. The respondent shall file an additional affidavit before the Tribunal, explaining the delay in filing the petition for enhancement petition. To avoid further delay, the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on November 29, 1994. The State has to file an additional affidavit on November 29, 1994 or on any other later day as may be extended by the Tribunal, explaining the delay. On filing such an additional affidavit by the State, and hearing both the parties, the Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made herein. No costs.
Petition allowed.