JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - The sole question that falls for consideration in this application for a relevant writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the provision for rebate as provided in the new Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the State Act) subsequently incorporated therein by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1962 (Orissa Act No. 31 of 1962) is or is not in view of what is provided in Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956)-(hereinafter called the Central Act) and Rule 22 framed thereunder by the State of Orissa attracted or applicable also to the inter-State sales tax that is payable under the Central Act. This new Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State provides that (8)-A rebate of one percentum on the amount of tax payable by a dealer shall be allowed if such tax is paid by the dealer on or before the due date of payment. Under Section 13(4)(d) of that Act tax is deemed to be paid on or before the due date on payment if the same is paid "within thirty days from the date of service of the notice issued by the Commissioner for the purpose". 2. The Petitioner who is an incorporated company and is a registered dealer within the meaning of the Central Act was assessed thereunder to sales tax for the two quarters ending 31st December 1962, and 31st March 1963 to the extent of its. 62061.86 ps. and Rs. 47,266.21 ps. respectively. It is not disputed that these amounts of tax levied on the Petitioner were paid by it on the 28th January 1963 for the December quarter and on the 3rd April 1963 and 29th April 1963, for the March quarter, i.e. both much before the due date of payment, as contemplated, by aforesaid Section 13(4)(b) of the State Act. 3. The claim of the Petitioner-company is that as such by virtue of the provisions made in Section 9(3) of the Central Act and Rule 22 made the under by the State of Orissa, the company is entitled to the rebate as provided in Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State Act. The amounts of rebate ad calculated by the Petitioner for the two aforesaid quarters come to Rs. 626.62 ps. and Rs. 472.66 ps. respectively. The amounts of rebate ad calculated by the Petitioner for the two aforesaid quarters come to Rs. 626.62 ps. and Rs. 472.66 ps. respectively. The Petitioner company therefore made a claim for the aforesaid amounts of rebate before the Commercial Tax Officer, Rourkela. This claim was rejected by his order dated the 10th August, 1963 and that order was subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, on the 13th February, 1964. Being therefore aggrieved with these orders, the Petitioner has come to this Court for the issue of an appropriate writ or order against the Department, on the ground that the said order of Commissioner is illegal, void and inoperative in law. 4. The fate of this application admittedly bangs on the answer to the question as posed above. If we come to the conclusion that the answer has to be in the affirmative, as claimed by the Petitioner, the application has to be allowed; otherwise it is conceded that it has to be dismissed. 5. Section 9(3) of the Central Act (excluding the proviso thereto which has no bearing on the facts of this, case) lays down that: 9(3)-The authorities for the time being empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India, and subject to any rules made under this Act, assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax including any penalty payable by a dealer under this Act, in the same manner as the tax on the sale and purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is assessed, paid and collected: and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law including the provisions relating to returns, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, penalties and compounding of offences, shall apply accordingly. For the purpose of this case this Sub-section has to be read along with two other relevant provisions of the Central Act namely, Sub-section (1) of Section 9 and Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 13 of the Central Act. For the purpose of this case this Sub-section has to be read along with two other relevant provisions of the Central Act namely, Sub-section (1) of Section 9 and Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 13 of the Central Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 excluding its proviso, which is not relevant for our present purposes provides that: Tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the Course of inter-State trade or commerce whether such sales fall within Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 3, shaH levied and collected by the Government of India, in the manner provided in Sub-section (3) in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced. 6. Then comes Section 13 of the Central Act. Thereunder there is power given under Sub-section (1) to the Central Government and under Sub-section (3) to the State Government to make rules for the purposes of the Act. These Sub-sections (1) and (3) read as follows: 13(1)-The Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, make rules providing for (a) ... .... (b) ... .... (c) ... .... (d) ... .... (e) ... .... (f) ... .... (g) ... .... (3) The State Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and the rules made under Sub-section (1) to carry out the purpose of this Act. It is common ground that the State of Orissa in exercise of its power, given to it under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Central Act, has on the 16th Maj 1957, framed certain rules and that the aforesaid Rule 22 is one of them. Therein it is laid down that: the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 19,17) and the rules made there under shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in respect of procedural and other matters incidental to the carrying out of the purposes of the Act for which no provision is made in these rules or in the. Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. This rule having been framed in exercise of the power given u/s 13(3) of the Central Government for the limited object, as stated therein, of carrying out the purposes of the parent Act cannot validly incorporate therein any provision contrary to, or inconsistent with what is laid down in the parent Act. Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. This rule having been framed in exercise of the power given u/s 13(3) of the Central Government for the limited object, as stated therein, of carrying out the purposes of the parent Act cannot validly incorporate therein any provision contrary to, or inconsistent with what is laid down in the parent Act. In other words this rule when read in the background of Section 9(3) of the Central Act cannot enlarge the scope of the provision made in that section, nor can include thereunder any provision which is inconsistent with the terms of that section. Therefore even if it be conceded, as contended by Mr. Govind Das, that the expression 'other matters' as used therein is not limited to matters ejusdem generis with procedural matters and therefore is not to be read as conveying a meaning same or similar to the preceding expression 'procedural matters' on the principle as laid down in The State of Mysore and Another Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. United Towns Electric Company v. Attorney General for New foundland 1939 (1) All. E.R. 423, 428 and Allen v. Emerson 1944 (1) All. E.R. 344, 347 and D.S. Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories AIR 1965 S.C. 950, 981 that cannot result in enlargement of the scope of Rule 22 when read in the background of Section 9(3) of the Central Act. Therefore, on the facts of this case any question relating to the construction of the expression 'other matters' as used in Rule 22 is nothing but academic. In other words the provision for rebate, as made in the new Sub-section (8) of Section 13, of the State Act, may be attracted if at all to the tax payable under the Central Act only is it, is found to have been, made so permissible u/s 9(3) of the Central Act; otherwise not. 7.Now Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Act may be conveniently split up into three parts. The first part relates to the authorities who are empowered thereunder to assess, collect and enforce payment of tax payable under the Central Act on behalf of the Central Government. 'The second part deals with the manner in which those authorities have to assess collect and enforce payment of the tax (including any penalty) payable by a dealer. The first part relates to the authorities who are empowered thereunder to assess, collect and enforce payment of tax payable under the Central Act on behalf of the Central Government. 'The second part deals with the manner in which those authorities have to assess collect and enforce payment of the tax (including any penalty) payable by a dealer. The third and the last part refers to the powers which those authorities may exercise for that purpose and also includes therein the provisions of law which have been accordingly made applicable in relation thereto, including the provisions as to returns, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, penalties and compounding of offences. 8. All these different, provisions have been borrowed from the State Act, in the aforesaid Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Act with a view to lay down, (as is evident from Sub-section; (1) of Section 9 of the Central Act,) the manner in which the tax payable under the Central Act, is to be levied, and collected. 8. All these different, provisions have been borrowed from the State Act, in the aforesaid Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Act with a view to lay down, (as is evident from Sub-section; (1) of Section 9 of the Central Act,) the manner in which the tax payable under the Central Act, is to be levied, and collected. Therefore, though it is true that under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Central Act the authorities empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment .of the tax, thereunder are the same as the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State; likewise, the manner in which the authorities are to assess, collect and enforce payment of the tax including penalty payable under the Central Act, is the same as the- tax on the sale and purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is assessed paid and collected; and lastly the powers also which they may exercise for that purpose are the same as they may have under the general sales tax law of the State and therefore the provisions of law which have been made applicable in connection therewith are also the same including those relating to returns, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, penalties and compounding of offences; but they have all been borrowed from the general sales tax law of the appropriate State only for the limited object of providing (as is laid down in Section 9(1) of the Central Act) the manner in which tax payable under the Central Act is to be levied and collected by the Central Government; and thus they are not in any way to affect either the liability that is created u/s 6 of the Central Act or its quantum that is subsequently defined in the other relevant provisions of the Central Act. In other words, what is provided by the aforesaid section, 9(3), is only a machinery for the purpose of levying or collecting the tax, payable under the Central Act. This is exactly in consonance, with what is generally understood in law by the expression "in the same manner". 9. In other words, what is provided by the aforesaid section, 9(3), is only a machinery for the purpose of levying or collecting the tax, payable under the Central Act. This is exactly in consonance, with what is generally understood in law by the expression "in the same manner". 9. In "Words and Phrases" (Permanent Edition Volume 38, Page 222, this expression has been explained in these words: The phrase "in the same" manner has a well understood meaning in legislation and that, meaning is not one of restriction or limitation, but of procedure. It means- by similar proceedings so far as such proceedings, are applicable to the subject matter ; Wilders S.S. Co. v. Low 112.F. 161, 164: 50 C.C.A. 473, citing Phillips v. Middelex County 122 Mass. 258, 260. In St. 1859 c. 378, authorising County Commissioners to remove all dams on certain streams for the purpose of proper drainage in certain towns and providing for damages therefore, shall be assessed in the same manner as lying out of highways means by similar proceedings so far as such proceedings are applicable to the subject-matter-Phillips v. Middle County 122 Mass. 258, 260 10. The decisions of some of the High Courts also-as in Mariappa Nadar v. State of Madras 12 S.T.C. 371, Parvathi Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs. The State of Kerala The State of Mysore and Another Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., and Sri Surya Trading Firm and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh lead to the same conclusion. In all these cases the controversy rested on the construction of the expression "in the same manner" as used in Sub-section (3) of Section 9, or as used in Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Central Act before its amendment made in September 1958. In the first three cases the common question raised was whether an Assessee assessed to sales tax u/s 8 of the Central Act was entitled to deduct from his turnover the excise duty paid by him on the goods sold. The claim made by the Assessee was that he was entitled to do so. In the first three cases the common question raised was whether an Assessee assessed to sales tax u/s 8 of the Central Act was entitled to deduct from his turnover the excise duty paid by him on the goods sold. The claim made by the Assessee was that he was entitled to do so. In support of this claim reliance was placed on the relevant rule of the general sales tax rules which were framed, under the appropriate law of the relevant State and provided for such deduction; and it was contended that in view of the expression 'in the same manner' used in Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Act, that rule could be attracted to permit the exclusion of the excise duty collected by the dealer. This contention was negatived in all these cases. In Mariappa Nadar v. State of Madras 12 S.T.C. 371, the learned Judges have held that the phrase 'in the same manner' as used in Section 9(3) did not make applicable an the incidents of the local sales tax law to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. What was contemplated by the phrase was that the procedure of making assessment, collection of tax etc. was the same as laid down in the local sales tax Act. The application of that procedural provision of the local law did not assimilate other provisions at that law which dealt with the determination of the turnover which, in so far as the Central Act was concerned, was required to be determined only under the Central Act and the rules framed thereunder. In the case of Parvathi Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs. The State of Kerala, it was observed that the phrase 'in the same manner' in Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 will not attract Rule 7(1) of the, General Sales Tax Rules 1958, to permit the exclusions of excise duty collected by the dealer. Likewise, in the case of The State of Mysore and Another Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., it had been stated that: the phrase 'in the same manner' (as used in Section 9(3)) does not make applicable all the incidents of the local sales tax law to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. Likewise, in the case of The State of Mysore and Another Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., it had been stated that: the phrase 'in the same manner' (as used in Section 9(3)) does not make applicable all the incidents of the local sales tax law to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. What is contemplated by the phrase is that the procedure of making assessment and collection of the tax is the same as in the local sales tax Act. The last case of Sri Surya Trading Firm and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh relates to the claim made by an Assessee under the Central Act in respect of the benefit of exemption granted to handloom cloth under notification No. 2323 dated the 13th December, 1957, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government, in exercise of !the powers u/s 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. That claim was also found to be untenable and in rejecting the same the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh- High Court held that: the exemption granted by the notification is only in respect of goods exigible to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the State has no power acting u/s 9(1) to give exemption to goods liable to be taxed under the Central Act. The fiction enacted by Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 is only for a limited purpose and that is for calculating the rate. The position' of a dealer u/s 8(2) could not be equated to a dealer governed by the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, for every purpose. 11. It is therefore obvious that all these authorities have unequivocally laid down that what is, u/s 9(3) of the Central Act, borrowed from the general sales tax law of the appropriate State and applied to assessment, levy and enforcement of payment of any sales tax including penalty, payable by a dealer under that Act is only the procedural 'Part and that, too, only to the extent .as specified therein and not to any substantive part thereof, relating to or connected with either the liability to tax on the inter-State sales as provided in Section 6 of the Central Act or its quantum as defined therein. 12. Subsequently, in the case of State of Mysore Vs. 12. Subsequently, in the case of State of Mysore Vs. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhaiah Setty and Sons all the aforesaid cases have been noticed with approval and it has been observed therein as follows: In Mariappa Nadar v. The State of Madras 12 S.T.C. 371, it was held by the Madras High Court that tax leviable u/s 8(2) was on the turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, and not under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. There was in the view of that Court nothing in Section 8(2) which provided that the inter-State nature of the transaction became intra State. The Act did not declare that the transaction shall be deemed to be inside the State. The local sales law applied to it only to the extent to which it was specifically directed. Therefore, by the terms of Section 8 the Assessee was not entitled to exclude from the turnover the inter-State sales. The Court also held that the phrase 'in the same manner' in Section 9(3) which was substituted for the original Sub-section (2) of Section 9 by the Central Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1958, did not make applicable all the incidents of the local sales tax law to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. The phrase merely contemplated that the procedure for making the assessment and collection of tax and the provisions relating to determination of turnover, shall be the same as laid down in the local sales tax Act. 13. Therefore, both on principle and on authorities the implication and import of the expression 'in the same manner' as used in Section 8(3) of the Central Act, cannot be extended to any matter beyond the field of procedure as laid down in the general sales tax law of the concerned State and that, too, only to the extent as specific therein. In fact, so far there is little controversy between the parties, but what is mainly contravened in this case is the claim made on behalf of the Assessee that the provision for rebate, as made in Section 13(8) of the State Act forms part of the procedural law and is related to the machinery as provided in Section 9(1) of the Central Act-for the purpose of assessment, collection and enforcement of the tax levied thereunder. The submission made by Mr. The submission made by Mr. Govind Das is that the provision for rebate has been made in Section 13(8) of the State Act only with a view to facilitate the process of assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of the tax and therefore in' view of what is provided made in Section 9(3) of the Central Act it should be made applicable also to the tax payable thereunder, To support this contention reliance has been placed by learned Counsel on the meaning and import of the expression "in the manner" as used in Section 13(1) of the State Act and we have been asked to construe the expression 'in the same manner' occurring in Section 9(3) of the Central Act on the analogy of the interpretation which the expression 'in the manner' occurring in Section 13(1) of the State Act would bear. 14. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention. These two expressions in the two Acts have been used in different contexts and refer to two entirely different subject matters. The expression 'in the manner' (used in Section 13(1) of the state Act) has been used therein only with reference to the Act of the Assessee in the matter of making payment of the tax levied under the State Act; and therefore it necessarily involves all that is connected with or related to such an act of payment by the Assessee. In contradistinction therewith, the expression 'in the same manner' has been used in Section 9(3) of the Central Act not with reference to any act of the Assessee in the matter of making payment of the tax but with reference to the act of the authorities which they are obliged to do in the course of exercising their power given to them under the State Act for the purpose of assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of the tax levied thereunder. These two expressions, therefore, as used in the two Acts, have been obviously used with reference to two different subject matters-one relating to the payment of the tax by the Assessee and the other relating to the exercise of power by the authorities concerned for the purpose of assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of the tax. That being so, the two expressions cannot be equated, nor any assistance in interpreting the one can be had from the other. That being so, the two expressions cannot be equated, nor any assistance in interpreting the one can be had from the other. 15.It is true that in Sri Surya Trading Firm and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh. there are certain observations made which, if not carefully read, may give rise to an impression that anything which is incidental to the manner of payment of tax or is a concomitant in the process of payment and collection of the tax payable by an Assessee under the State Act, is for the reason of Section 9(3) of the Central Act, made incidental to the manner of assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of the tax by the authorities specified therein. But it is to be carefully noted that those observations have been made in that case only in the context of, and with reference to, the scope and extent of the powers which have been, made available thereunder to the authorities, for the purpose of making assessment, collection and enforcement of the payment of tax (including penalty) payable by a declaration under that Act and not in the context of, or with reference to, any act of payment by the Assessee payment of the tax levied under the State Act. It is quite understandable that the power given to the authorities u/s 9(3) of the Central Act may include the power to impose penalty as hid down in any State Act in order to make the machinery provided therein for the purpose of assessment, collection and enforcement of payment fully effective; but that cannot lead to the conclusion that in the same way the benefit of rebate also, as provided in Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State Act (which is in the nature of a discount available to an Assessee only in the event of his making payment within the time prescribed,-and has nothing to do with the power to be exercised by the authorities as specified therein for the purpose of assessment, collection an enforcement of tax payable under the Central Act)-is attracted by the expression "in the same manner" as used in Section 9(3) of the Central Act. 16. Read therefore in the background of these distinguishing features, the decision in Sri Surya Trading Firm and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh can have no bearing on the facts of the present case. 17. 16. Read therefore in the background of these distinguishing features, the decision in Sri Surya Trading Firm and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh can have no bearing on the facts of the present case. 17. In this connection, Mr. Govind Das has also drawn our attention to some of the observations made in the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhaiah Setty and Sons. Therein the main discussion central round the point as to whether the expression 'in the manner' as used in Section 8(2), as it stood before its amendment meant to refer not only to the calculation of the rate of tax but also to the manner of its levy. In other words, the question for decision in that case was about the construction of the expression 'in the manner' as used in the aforesaid Section 8(2) of the Central Act, as it stood before its amendment. And it was in answer to that question that their Lordships observed therein that the expression "in the manner" as used in that section, had to be read in the background of Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Central Act- as they stood before the amendment and also in the background of Section 5(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957; and finally held that the expression 'in the manner' as used in Section 8(2) of the: Central Act should be so construed as to relate not only to the calculation of the rate of tax, but also to the manner of levy of the tax. That decision also, therefore, can be of no avail in throwing any light on the question raised before us here-as to what is meant to be referred to by the expression 'in the manner' as used in the present Section 9(3) of the Central Act. 18.:Further 'rebate' as defined in law means to make a discount from the amount due for prompt payment-see Dictionary of English Law by Jewitt, page 1480 and Black's Law Dictionary (Second Edition) as quoted in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone Vs. Travancore Rayons Ltd.. 18.:Further 'rebate' as defined in law means to make a discount from the amount due for prompt payment-see Dictionary of English Law by Jewitt, page 1480 and Black's Law Dictionary (Second Edition) as quoted in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone Vs. Travancore Rayons Ltd.. Looked at, therefore, from the point of view of this definition also the provision for rebate as made in Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State Act cannot in any way be related to, or connected with, the machinery part of the provision made in Section 9(3) of the Central Act. In substance, the effect and import of the provision for rebate made in Section 13(8) of the State. Act is, if not directly at least indirectly, to reduce the quantum of tax payable for the intrastate sales. Such a consequence, therefore, can have no relation to the machinery for the assessment, collection and enforcement for the payment of tax levied under the Central Act. In the State Act this provision of rebate has been made, at best, only as a stimulus for prompt payment within that time prescribed and not as a part of the machinery provided therein for enforcing the collection and payment of the tax levied thereunder if the same is not paid within the time prescribed. Therefore what is provided in Section 9(3) of the Central Act as a machinery for the purpose of levying and collecting inter-state sales tax, cannot attract the provision of rebate as laid down in Section 13(8) of the State Act. Moreover, in any case this much is clear that the machinery as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Act for assessment, collection and enforcement of payment of the tax levied under that Act is never intended to change the character of the tax from inter-State to inter-State tax, or to attract any exemption or discount from the tax prescribed thereunder and thereby to cut down either directly or indirectly the plenary charge imposed by Section 6 of the Central Act. It is true that the liability u/s 6 of the Central Act is subject to its other provisions, but what is laid down in Section 9(3) of the Central Act as already discussed above, relates only to the machinery for the levy and collection of the tax which is made payable u/s 6 of that Act and not to its liability or its quantum or its manner of levy. 19. Thus, looked at from any point of view, the provision for rebate made in Section 13 (8) of the State Act cannot be held to have any application to the inter-States sales tax which is made payable under the Central Act. This, therefore, disposes of the main submissions made on behalf of the parties, on the merit of the question involved here. Accordingly, the answer to that question has to be given in the negative. 20. But the learned Advocate-General, appearing for Department has in support of the impugned order laid reliance also on the restriction imposed in Section 9(3) of the Central Act, subject to which alone the machinery provided for the assessment, collection and enforcement of payment of the tax levied under the State Act may be borrowed thereunder. No doubt it is specifically stated in Section 9(3) that it will apply only if there is no rule made to that effect under the Central Act, and that is not controverted by Mr. Govind Das. But what is on this point in controversy is whether there is any rule made under the Central Act which relates to the subject of rebate-as provided in Section 13(8) of the State Act. The submission made by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Department is that Rules 16 and 17 of the Orissa Central Rules, cover the same field as is occupied by Section 13 of the State Act, which includes in Sub-section (8) the provision for rebate. These Rules 16 and 17 of the Orissa Central Rules read as follows: 16. The submission made by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Department is that Rules 16 and 17 of the Orissa Central Rules, cover the same field as is occupied by Section 13 of the State Act, which includes in Sub-section (8) the provision for rebate. These Rules 16 and 17 of the Orissa Central Rules read as follows: 16. Notice of demand: (1) In respect of any amount found payable by a dealer the Commissioner shall serve on the dealer a notice of demand in Form VII and shall fix a date for payment, such date not being less than thirty days from the date of service of the notice and also a date on which the dealer shall produce the receipted challan in proof of payment of such amount: Provided that the Commissioner may, in respect of any particular dealer and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the date of such payment or allow such dealer to pay the tax due and penalty if any, by instalments. (2) If on the date fixed under Sub-rule (1) the dealer has not paid the amount due or has failed to produce evidence of payment by the date fixed in the notice in form VII, the Commissioner may impose a penalty not exceeding one half of the amount due, and serve a notice in form VIII directing the dealer to pay a penalty together with sums previously due, by a date to be fixed in the notice and produce the receipted challan in proof of payment of such amount by a date also to be specified III the said notice: Provided that in cases of continuing default the penalty may be levied in instalments from time to time so however as not to exceed one half of the total, amount of tax due: Provided further if the collection of the sum specified in the notice or demand in Form VII or any part thereof has been stayed on appeal or revision penalty may be levied if the sum is not paid and proof of such payment is not produced before the Sales Tax Officer within a fortnight after the expiry of the stay period. Explanation: Where stay of collection until disposal of appeal or revision has been ordered, the stay period shall be deemed to have expired on the date of disposal of such appeal or revision and where in such cases the appeal or revision results in a reduction or increase in the sum demanded, as revised notice of demand in Form VIII will issue, and, no penalty shaH be levied until the expiry of the time limit specified in the said revised notice. 17. Recovery of tax from a defaulting dealer: If on the date fixed under Rule 16 the defaulting dealer Las not paid the amount due, or such instalment thereof as may be due, the Commissioner shall apply to the District Collector having jurisdiction in the area in which the dealer's place or places of business are located, for the recovery of the amount as an arrear land revenue. 21. In my opinion, Mr. Govind Das is right in his submission, that the aforesaid two rules in substance correspond to Rules 32 and 33 of the Rules made by the State of Orissa in exercise of the power given to them u/s 29 of the State Act. The scope of Section 13 of the State Act is much wider than what is contemplated by Rules 16 and 17 of the Orissa Central Rules. In any case Rules 16 and 17 are completely silent on the question of rebate as provided in Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State Act. In that view of the matter, the submission made by the learned Advocate-General that the provision for rebate as made in Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State Act is covered by Rules 16 and 17 of the Orissa Central Rules cannot be accepted; and therefore the submission made by Mr. Govind Das cannot be negatived at least on the ground of any restriction imposed u/s 9(3) of the Central Act-though it is a different matter that this submission fails on merit, as already found. 22. In the result therefore it is held that the provision for rebate as made in the new Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the State Act is not applicable to the payment of the inter-State sales tax payable under the Central Act. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200/ - (Rupees two hundred only). Das, J. 23. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200/ - (Rupees two hundred only). Das, J. 23. I agree Final Result : Dismissed