Judgment HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1,10,125/- deposited by the petitioner company as profession tax under the provisions of the Bihar Taxation on Trades, Professions, Callings and Employment Ordinance, 1973 (Ordinance No. 120 of 1973). 2. The main ground which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that before the liability could be assessed the Ordinance itself had expired and, therefore, the amount deposited by the petitioner in advance became refundable. 3. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows : In the State of Bihar municipalities, municipal corporations and similar local bodies were empowered under the State laws to levy tax on trades, professions, callings and employments within their own spheres, but this taxation measure was not working well. The State Government with an intention to raise an additional resource, decided to take over the administration of profession tax and to extend its application to the whole of the State of Bihar. Accordingly the said Ordinance No. 120 of 1973, was promulgated with effect from 1-10-1973 and its administration was entrusted to the Commercial Taxes Department. 4. Under the Ordinance, salary or wage earners were liable to pay tax at certain rates, subject to a maximum of Rs. 250.00 in a year. The Ordinance also became applicable to the employees of the public sector undertakings and autonomous organisations. The employer of each such unit was to obtain certificate of registration from the prescribed authority as indicated in S.4. He had also to furnish returns in the prescribed form in respect of the salaries and wages paid in a month together with the tax deducted by him within 15 days of the expiry of that month. For failure on the part of an employer to discharge these obligations, there were provisions in the Ordinance for imposition of penalties. The person responsible for the payment of salary was deemed to be personally in default in respect of the tax in case he failed to pay it to the State Government account, as required, after deducting it, or if he did not deduct the due amount of tax. 5. The person responsible for the payment of salary was deemed to be personally in default in respect of the tax in case he failed to pay it to the State Government account, as required, after deducting it, or if he did not deduct the due amount of tax. 5. After the promulgation of the Ordinance the petitioner was served with a notice dated 27-12-73 (Annexure 1) by respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum, asking it to get registration of the organisation done and take steps for payment of the tax under the provisions of the Ordinance at an early date. It is in pursuance of this notice that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,000.00 under Treasury Chalan dated 19-3-1974, representing the professional tax payable by its employees on their wages/salaries for the period from 1-10-1973 to 28-2-1974 on estimate basis, and any difference with the estimated amount was to be adjusted while depositing the tax for March, 1974. 6. The aforesaid Ordinance was followed by Ordinance No. 5 of 1974, and the petitioner, as stated in para. 18 of the writ application, in spite of application for registration, was not given registration certificate nor any assessment of tax was made and the amount deposited by it was "subject to the final accounting and adjustment after the assessment of the taxes as and when done." The Ordinance, however, was withdrawn and, according to the petitioner"s case, the Government had decided to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioner and for this purpose it has relied upon the letter dated 29-4-1974 issued by respondent No. 2 to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Annexure 3). But reading Annexure 3 it appears that respondent No. 2 had simply asked clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding the Government decision in the matter of refund. The petitioner, however, by letter dated 24-6-1973 made a demand from respondent No. 2 of the said amount of Rs. 1,10,125/- including the enrolment fee of Rs. 125/- and thereafter also issued reminders for the refund. 7. A similar prayer was made by the petitioner earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 1153 of 1977 and this Court by its order dated 28-11-1979 (Annexure 6) simply directed "to pass necessary orders, in the matter within three months from today", i.e. in the matter of refund. 125/- and thereafter also issued reminders for the refund. 7. A similar prayer was made by the petitioner earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 1153 of 1977 and this Court by its order dated 28-11-1979 (Annexure 6) simply directed "to pass necessary orders, in the matter within three months from today", i.e. in the matter of refund. Thereafter the petitioner was informed by the Government by its letter dated 27-2-1980 (Annexure 7) that the professional tax was legally levied and collected and as such the question of refund did not arise. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ application. 8. No counter-affidavit has been filed in this case but the contention on behalf of the State was that the petitioner has no right to refund inasmuch as the payment was made during the period the Ordinance was in force, for the liability already incurred during that period and, therefore, the question of refund did not arise. 9. The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Basudeva Prasad was that the liability for payment of the professional tax did not accrue as the registration of the petitioner and assessment of the liability under the provisions of the Ordinance were sine qua non for payment of the tax and, therefore, until those conditions were fulfilled, the tax did not become due and accordingly the petitioner was clearly entitled for the refund. 10. In order to appreciate the argument, I shall briefly refer to some of the provisions of the Ordinance. The charging section is S.3 which reads as follows : "3. Charge of tax.- (1) Every person under one or the other of the classes mentioned in the second column of the Schedule appended hereto, shall pay tax at the rate mentioned against the class of such person in the third column of the said Schedule. XX XX XX Provided further that the tax so payable by a person shall not exceed rupees two hundred and fifty in any year; XX XX XX (2) The tax payable under this Ordinance by any person earning a salary or wage, shall be deducted by the employer from the salary or wage payable to such person, before such salary or wage is paid to him and such employer shall be liable to pay tax on behalf of all such persons. XX XX XX Section 4 reads as follows : "4. Registration and enrolment. XX XX XX Section 4 reads as follows : "4. Registration and enrolment. - (1) Every employer (not being an officer of Government) liable to pay tax under sub-sec.(2) of S.3 shall obtain a certificate of registration from the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner. (2) Every person liable to pay tax under this Ordinance other than a person earning salary or wages, in respect of whom the tax is payable by his employer, shall obtain a certificate of enrolment from the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner. XX XX XX Sub-section (3) of S.4 enjoined upon every employer a duty to obtain a certificate of registration and to apply for registration within 30 days from the date of coming into force of the Ordinance, and failure to follow this obligation had been made penal. Sec. 5 also required every employer to furnish returns in the prescribed form in respect of the salaries and wages paid in a month together with the tax deducted by him, within 15 days of expiry of that month, to the prescribed authority, accompanied by a Treasury chalan in proof of the payment of the full amount of tax according to the return. Sec. 6(1) dealt with the assessment and read as follows : "6. Assessment of employers.- (1) If the prescribed authority is satisfied that the return filed is correct and complete he shall accept the return." Sub-section (2) also empowered the prescribed authority in cases not falling under sub-section (1), for examination of accounts etc. and on its failure to assess tax due, to the best of its judgment. Sub-section (3) read as follows : "(3). If an employer, has wilfully failed to get himself registered or being registered has failed to file the return, the prescribed authority shall, after giving the employer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as he deems fit, or otherwise, assess the tax due to the best of his judgment." 11. Mr. Basudeva Prasad referred to the case of Commr. of Income-tax, Madras V/s. P. T. Chengalvaroya Chettiar, AIR 1937 Mad 300 (SB) in support of his contention that the tax had not become due until assessment was made. In my opinion, the decision relied upon by Mr. Mr. Basudeva Prasad referred to the case of Commr. of Income-tax, Madras V/s. P. T. Chengalvaroya Chettiar, AIR 1937 Mad 300 (SB) in support of his contention that the tax had not become due until assessment was made. In my opinion, the decision relied upon by Mr. Prasad is no authority for the proposition, nor examining the provisions of the Ordinance extracted here to before, it is possible to accept his contention that the liability for payment of the professional tax was to accrue only after making of the assessment. Sec.3 and the subsequent provisions are very clear that the liability of the employer to pay tax is automatic and he has to pay the deposit in respect of the deductions made from the salary and wages paid by him, within 15 days of the expiry of every month, under S.3(2) he had to deduct the tax from the salary every month and deposit. It is well settled that the liability to pay tax arises by virtue of the charging section alone, though quantification and of the amount payable is postponed, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. C.W.T. (1966) 59 ITR 767 : ( AIR 1966 SC 1370 ) and then again in the case of Setu Parvati Bayi V/s. C.W.T. (1968) 69 I.T.R. 864 (SC). Similar was the view of the Federal Court in the case of Chatturam V/s. C.I.T., (1947) 15 I.T.R. 302 : (AIR 1947 FC 32) which relied upon the decision of the House of Lords in Whitney V/s. I.R.C., (1926) 10 Tax Cas 88 that liability to tax does not depend on assessment; that ex hypothesi has already been fixed : the assessment order only quantifies the liability which is already definitely and finally created by the charging sections (see Ishwarlal Parekh V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1968) 70 ITR 95 : ( AIR 1969 SC 40 )). 12. In that view of the matter, I find myself unable to accept the contention of Mr. Basudeva Prasad that the liability of the petitioner was dependent either upon the grant of registration certificate or on the making of an assessment. 12. In that view of the matter, I find myself unable to accept the contention of Mr. Basudeva Prasad that the liability of the petitioner was dependent either upon the grant of registration certificate or on the making of an assessment. The provisions of Ss.3 and 4 of the Ordinance make it quite clear that the petitioner was to make deductions of the tax and deposit every month and, therefore, it is clear that this liability/obligation was already definitely created and accrued every month and did not depend upon the assessee (assessment?). 13. Some arguments were also made by Mr. Basudeva Prasad that in any view of the matter on expiry of the Ordinance the amount became refundable. It is difficult to accept this contention either, partly for the reasons already discussed above inasmuch as the payments were made during the lifetime of the Ordinance and the obligations and liabilities accrued and incurred under the Ordinance could not be affected by the expiry of the said Ordinance in the absence of any contrary intention. Although this principle is well settled, I am tempted to refer to a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarak Chandra Mukherjee V/s. Ratan Lal Ghosal, AIR 1957 Cal 257 , where an observation was made that an Act though itself temporary may create permanent rights. A similar view has been taken by me in a recent Bench decision in the case of Gopal Krishna Sinha V/s. State of Bihar, (C.W.J.C. No. 2458 of 1983) disposed of on 20-3-1984 (reported in AIR 1984 Pat 235 ). 14. In the result, there is no merit in the application which is accordingly dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs. S.N.JHA, J. 15 I agree.