All the Civil Rules raise the same question of law and fact and as such they are taken up for hearing together. 2. The petitioner is a statutory Public Sector Corporation set up under an Act of Parliament for development of petroleum resources and production and sale petroleum products produced by it. The Commission has oil and gas fields in the State of Assam. In the said fields, the Commission produces crude oil and natural gas. The crude oil produced was supplied to the Indian Oil Corporation at Barauni Refinery. 3. On 15.5.65 the petitioner was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as a dealer and was issued with a certificate of registration No.252 (Central). The petitioner was assessed to tax by the Superintendent of Taxes under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of the supply of crude oil produced by it to the Indian Oil Corporation and levied tax on the said inter State sales of crude oil. 4. An appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Tax (Appeals), Jorhat under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 against the order of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes for the period ending 30.6.71 to 30.9.72. On 2.4.71 a notification was issued under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 providing that no tax under the Act shall be payable by a registered dealer in respect of the sales made by him of petroleum products to any registered dealer out side the State in course of inter State trade and commerce. Similar notification was issued covering the period upto 30.6.72. On 26.11.78 the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) vide its order dated 20.11.78 directed the petitioner to pay part of the demand for admission of the appeals and stayed the realisation of the balance demand. On 20.12.89, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal but the contention of the petitioner that the sales are exempted from payment of tax under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals). These are the facts of Civil Rule No.2666 of 1991. 5. On 20.12.89, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal but the contention of the petitioner that the sales are exempted from payment of tax under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals). These are the facts of Civil Rule No.2666 of 1991. 5. In Civil Rule No.2665 of 1991, the period ending is 3 0.9.71; in Civil Rule No.2667 of 1991 the period ending is 30.6.72; in Civil Rule No.2668 of 1991, the period ending is 31.3.72; in Civil Rule No.2670 of 1991, the period ending is 31.12.71 and in Civil RuleNo.2676 of 1991 the period ending is 30.9.72 and in all the Civil Rules, the other facts are same. The order dated 20.12.89 is at Annexure III to the writ application in Civil Rule No.2666 of 1991. That is quoted below: “Copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Jorhat on appeal petition dated 3.10.78 of M/s ONGC Eastern Region, PO. Nazira, Sibsagarfor period ending 30.6.71,30.9.71,31.3.72,30.6.72 and 30.9.72 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. ORDER Dated Jorhat, the 20th December, 1989. Here are 6 (six) appeals before me from M/s ONGC Eastern Region, PO Nazira, Sibsagar, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the assessment order passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar for the period ending 30.6.71, 30.9.71, 31.12.71, 31.3.72, 30.6.72 and 30.9.72. The grounds of appeal being the same for all the periods, I propose to dispose of the appeals by a common order. The history of the case in a nutshell is as below : The appellant M/s Oil and Natural Gas Commission Eastern Region, Nazira, is a registered dealer under the Act, bearing the Registration Certificate No.Sib/C-252, under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar. The appellant filed returns disclosing his liability and deposited admitted tax, if any, as per regular books of accounts for the periods in question. The assessment for the period ending 30.6.71,30.9.71,31.12.71,31.3.72,30.6.72 and 30.9.72 were completed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar under section 17 (4) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals against the order of assessment dated 21.8.78 and 23.8.78, relating to all the periods. Dr. The assessment for the period ending 30.6.71,30.9.71,31.12.71,31.3.72,30.6.72 and 30.9.72 were completed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar under section 17 (4) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals against the order of assessment dated 21.8.78 and 23.8.78, relating to all the periods. Dr. AK Saraf, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing urged the points for consideration as below : (1) that the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar erred in stating that the appellant failed to produce the accounts, in spite of sufficient time and opportunities allowed. (2) that the learned Superintendent of Taxes had no scope to act under section and the appellant having furnished the returns of turnover completed with the terms of notice under section 17 (2). The assessment made under section 17 (4) of the Act is bad in law and against justice. (3) that the entire assessment is liable to be declared illegal as the same was made on the turnover of the sales of appellant's products made to registered dealers in the course of inter-State trade in view of the Govt of Assam's notification Nos.FTX-120/66/68 dated 2.4.1971, FTX-120/66/79 dated 6.10.1971, FTX-120/ 66/130 dated 18.4.1972, FTX-120/66/105 dated 30.6.1971. (4) that the assessment order passed by the learned Superintendent of Taxes is erroneous and prejudicial to the appellant in view of the aforesaid notifications. (5) that the learned Superintendent of Taxes, while making the assessment should have held that the petitioner was not liable to be assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with relevant provisions of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 and should have, suo motu, refunded the tax paid by the petitioner. The learned counsel also referred to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, Tripura, decided on 16.8.1989 (1990 (1) GLJ 52). The Hon'ble High Court held that: “The assessing officer invested with the power to make assessment of tax discharges quasi-judicial functions and he is bound to observe the principles of natural justice in reaching his conclusions. One of the Rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice in the rule of the audi alterm partem which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. One of the Rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice in the rule of the audi alterm partem which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. The assessing officer cannot rely on any evidence or any fact in arriving at his conclusions without first pointing out the same to the assessee and giving him a reasonable opportunity of meeting the case which is sought to be made out in the assessment order. The assessee must be given full opportunity to meet the objections raised by the assessing officer. If an assessment is based on materials which were not disclosed to the assessee, the order of assessment would be vitiated. The petitioner was thus denied reasonable opportunity of hearing and on that score itself the impugned order of assessment cannot be sustained, the same being made in violation of principles of natural justice.” I have gone through the documents, evidence, and judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as referred by the learned counsel of the appellant as well as the case records furnished by the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar. After going through the arguments of the learned counsel and perusal of the case records, I feel that the contentions of the learned counsel are not devoid of sufficient force behind them. However on consideration of the above contention, I have come to the following conclusion: (a) that the principles of natural justice was not followed by the learned Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar before making assessment. (b) that the reasonable opportunity of hearing was denied to the appellant, by the Assessing Officer. (c) that the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar erred in completing the assessment under section 17 (2). (d) that the appellant being a Govt of India undertaking and all sales being fully supported by appropriate document, records, there was no basis for not accepting the figures of turnover as shown in the returns and supported by the accounts and estimating the same on guess and surmises. (d) that the appellant being a Govt of India undertaking and all sales being fully supported by appropriate document, records, there was no basis for not accepting the figures of turnover as shown in the returns and supported by the accounts and estimating the same on guess and surmises. I however, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel, regarding the points raised by him (as mentioned in SlNo.3,4 and 5) “that the sale of appellants products made to registered dealers in the course of inter-State trade, is exempted, in view of the notification made by the Govt of Assam vide Nos.FTX-120/66/68 dated2.4.71,FTX-120/66/79 dated 6.10.71, FTX-120/66/130 dated 18.4.72, FTX-120/66/105 dated 31.6.72.” On the ground that: (a) the item 'Crude oil' falls under the special importance in inter-State trade or commerce vide section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, item No.(II-C). (b) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of: (i) ONGC vs. State of Bihar & others (Writ Petition No.74 of 1975) (1976) 4 SCC 42 decided on 24.8.76. Held that: “Sales Tax--Inter-State sale-Supply of crude by ONGC from oil fields in Assam to refineries in Bihar- State of Assam alone competent to levy and collect Central Sales Tax-Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.” “The State of Assam has lawfully levied the Central Sales Tax on the petitioner. The State of Assam is entitled to levy Central Sales Tax on petitioner. The Commission has been paying sales tax since the commencement of sales.” (ii) Oil India Ltd. vs. The Superintendent of Taxes and others (1975)1SCC733. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: “Sales Tax-Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 3-Inter-State sale-Supply of crude oil by a company in Assam through its own pipeline to a refinery in Bihar in pursuance of an agreement, held, amounted to an inter State sale-Tax levied by sales tax authorities in Bihar held invalid and liable to refund.” In view of the above facts, law and keeping in mind of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, I therefore set aside the assessment under section 30 (4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act and direct the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar to make fresh assessment immediately in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to satisfy him in regard to the correctness of the return including the opportunity to submit 'C' Form etc. if required. The appeal is partially allowed. Inform the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar, the appellant immediately. Also send a copy of the order to CT Assam. Sd/- SR Dhar, Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Jorhat.” 6. It is the validity and legality of this order which is challenged in this writ application. 7.1 have heard Dr. AK Saraf, learned Advocate for the petitioner in all the Civil Rules and Dr. BP Todi, learned Advocate for the respondents in all the Civil Rules. Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner urges the following points: (i) That the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) wrongly construed the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1976) 4 SCC 42 inasmuch as in 1975 the Commissioner filed writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the transaction and supply of crude oil by the Commission to the IOC was neither a sale nor an inter State sale. It was due to dispute between the State of Bihar who claimed such sales to be sales made within Bihar whereas the State of Assam who claimed it to be an inter State sales from Assam, that the ONGC filed writ application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (ii) That even if the transaction in question was held to be inter State sales of crude oil by the petitioner to the IOC, no sales tax could be levied in view of the notification issued by the Government of Assam under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act granting exemption to all registered dealers in Assam from payment of tax in respect of sales of petroleum and petroleum products made by them to any registered dealer outside the State in course of inter State trade. (iii) That the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not regarding applicability of the notification issued by the State of Assam under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court only decided that the transportation of the petroleum products by the petitioner to IOC at Barauni in the State of Bihar was an inter State sales from Assam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court only decided that the transportation of the petroleum products by the petitioner to IOC at Barauni in the State of Bihar was an inter State sales from Assam. (iv) That the impugned order dated 20.12.89 in so far as it relates to rejection of the claim of the petitioner regarding exemption of sales from payment of taxes in view of notification issued under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in law. (v) That the action of the respondent in ignoring and not giving effect to the specific notification issued by the State of Assam under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act is unwarranted and without any sanction of law. The respondents have no authority and/or jurisdiction to overrule the statutory notifications issued and, as such, the impugned order of assessment is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (vi) That the respondents have failed and/or refused to carry out the legal duty cast on them not to levy tax in view of notifications under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, as such, the impugned action of the respondents are wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 286, 300A and 301 of the Constitution of India. (vii) That the amount of tax realised from the petitioner is liable to be refunded with interest @ 24% p.a. 8. In order to appreciate the first contention of Dr. Saraf, let us have a look in the two judgments mentioned in the impugned order i.e. (i) (1976) 4 SCC 42 and (ii) (1975) 1 SCC 733 . 9. (1976) 4 SCC 42 (Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. State of Bihar & others) was an application before the Supreme Court by ONGC with the contention that the supplies of crude oil made by it are not eligible to sales tax either by the State of Assam or the State of Bihar under the Central Sales Tax Act or the Bihar Sales Tax Act respectively. The Supreme Court in paragraph 14 and 17 of me judgment held inter alia as follows : (i) There is no doubt that the transactions in the present case amounted to sale of crude oil by the Commission to the Corporation. (ii) The State of Assam has lawfully levied the Central Sales Tax on the petitioner. The Supreme Court in paragraph 14 and 17 of me judgment held inter alia as follows : (i) There is no doubt that the transactions in the present case amounted to sale of crude oil by the Commission to the Corporation. (ii) The State of Assam has lawfully levied the Central Sales Tax on the petitioner. The State of Assam is entitled to levy Central Sales Tax on the petitioner. The Commission has been paying the sales tax since the commencement of sales. 10. In (1975) 1 SCC 733 (Oil India Ltd. vs. The Superintendent of Taxes & others), the Supreme Court held in paragraph 19 of the judgment inte ralia as follows : “Therefore, we think that the sales in question were sales in the course of inter-State trade and that the Bihar Government had no jurisdiction to tax the sales under the sales tax law of the State and accordingly, the tax assessed by the Bihar Govt. was quashed.” 11. So, these two cases did not resolve the question which was raised before the authority that they are not liable to pay tax in view of the exemption granted by the notification issued under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The last notification issued by the Govt is quoted below : “The 30th June, 1972 (Published in the Assam Gazette, Part HA, dated 12.9.72, page 1615) No FTX. 120/66/105- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Assam, in the public interest is pleased to direct that no tax under this Act shall be payable by a registered dealer having his place of business in the State of Assam in respect of the sales made by him of petroleum and petroleum products other than paraffins wax of all grades to any registered dealer outside the State in the course of inter-State trade or commerce for further period upto 31st July, 1972 with effect from 1st July, 1972.” 12. There are other notifications to the same effect by the Govt. from time to time. So, by the last notification, exemption was granted up to 31st July, 1972. Section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is quoted below : “Section 8. There are other notifications to the same effect by the Govt. from time to time. So, by the last notification, exemption was granted up to 31st July, 1972. Section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is quoted below : “Section 8. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained this section, the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, direct,- (a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of sales by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, from any such place of business of any such of goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification; (b) that in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the notification which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, by any dealer having his place of business in the State of or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the notification to any person or to such class of persons as may be specified in the notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the notification.” 13. So, exemption in the notification was granted in respect of the sales made by him of petroleum and petroleum products other than paraffins wax. The Assam (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1955 was enacted to impose tax on sales of petroleum and petroleum products and under section 3 of the Act crude oil is a good to be taxed as seen from section 3(1) (5) of the Act. There is also a set of Rules known as the Assam (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Rules, 1956. 14. There is also a set of Rules known as the Assam (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Rules, 1956. 14. The next question which will arise is whether crude oil can be included in petroleum and petroleum products. Under the Assam Act, 1955 mentioned above, the crude oil has been defined in section 2 (3) of the Assam Act. That is quoted below: “Section 2 (3) 'Crude oil' means Crude Oil as defined in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956)”. 15. Now let us have a look at section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 14 (2) (c) defines crude oil as follows : “Crude oil, that is to say, crude petroleum oils and crude oils obtained from bituminous minerals (such as sale, calcareous rock sand) whatever their composition, whether obtained from normal or condensation oil deposits or by destructive distillation of bituminous minerals and whether or not subjected to all or any of the following processes: (1) decantation; (2) de-salting; (3) dehydration;” 16. Dr. Saraf to support his submission that crude oil is nothing but petroleum also relies on the following things : (1) New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopedia which gives the meaning of crude oil and petroleum as follows : “ Crude Oil - Petroleum in an unrefined state. Petroleum an oily, dark coloured, flammable liquid which is a form of bitumen of a mixture of various hydro carbons, occurring naturally in the upper start a or the earth in various parts or the world, and commonly obtained by drilling used in its natural state or after treatment as a fuel, or separated by distillation into gasoline, naohtha, benzine, kerosine, or paraffin”. (ii) Kirk - Othmer-Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology II Edn. Vol.14 which gives the meaning of petroleum composition and the meaning given is as follows : “ The term 'petroleum' (literally, rock oil) is applied to the deposits of oil materials, usually composed largely of hydrocarbons, found in the upper strata of the earth's crust. The mechanism by which petroleum was framed has not been established definitely, but the presence of molecules which have structures reminiscent of those of plant and animal materials suggests formation from those materials over geologie periods of time. The mechanism by which petroleum was framed has not been established definitely, but the presence of molecules which have structures reminiscent of those of plant and animal materials suggests formation from those materials over geologie periods of time. The local distributions of plant and animal life are quite varied at the present time and, presumably, were similarly varied in the period in which the petroleum precursors were formed. Thus, the composition of the products derived from these precursors is not fixed with respect to either the molecular structures present or the proportions in which they occur, and the composition of petroleum may differ from region to region, pool to pool, and even from well to well within a poll. The presence of many similar molecular species in any one sample of petroleum makes the task of separation and identification of the constituents formidable. In fact, no complete analysis of any one crude oil has been achieved yet. Probably the most extensive effort to characterize a crude oil completely has been carried out by the American Petroleum Institute Research Project 6 (APIRP 6) (1). A mid-continent crude oil (Ponea City, Okla.) was selected as representative of US petroleum production. Application .of the most powerful separation and identification techniques available has resulted in the isolation and characterization of several hundred individual hydrocarbons which represent about one-half the materials present in this crude oil. The greater portion of the compounds isolated consists of lower boiling hydrocarbons, but progress is now being made in the identification of the higher boiling components. (A new research project, APIRP-60, has been initiated to study the heavy ends of petroleum). Spectroscopic techniques have proved to be extremely valuable in all phases of the work, but especially so in the higher boiling ranges. The Ponea city crude oil contains only small concentrations of non hydrocarbon materials, and, other than the hydrocarbons, only a few sulfur compounds have been isolated from it and characterized. Another API Research Project, APIRP - 18 (2), has isolated and characterized numerous sulfur compounds from a Wasson, Texas, crude oil which was chosen for study because of its high sulfur content. Two other API Projects, APIRP - 20 (3) and APIRP - 52 (4), have investigated nitrogen compounds, and the classic work of Lochte and co-workers at the University of Texas (3) was devoted to the oxygen-containing comounds in petroleum. Two other API Projects, APIRP - 20 (3) and APIRP - 52 (4), have investigated nitrogen compounds, and the classic work of Lochte and co-workers at the University of Texas (3) was devoted to the oxygen-containing comounds in petroleum. Many other elements are found in petroleum in low. concentration (5), but with a few exceptions such as the metal-loporphyrins, have not been characterized as to the molecular from in which they occur. The following discussion of the composition of petroleum will be based largely on the information published in the above sources. These studies, supplemented by the less extensive, but equally important, work of other in the field, have given us a preview of the nature of the complicated mixture of organic compounds we call petroleum. Many elegrant analytical techniques are available to us now as a result of the efforts of these workers, and we may well look forward to the day when it will be possible to characterize petroleum to almost any desired degree of completeness.” (iii) The Petroleum Act, 1934 where in section 2 (a) defines petroleum as follows :' “ 'Petroleum' means any liquid hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons and any inflammable mixture (liquid, viscous or solid) containing any liquid hydrocarbon.” (iv) Collins English Learners Dictionary the meaning of petroleum is given as follows : “Crude oil from which petrol, paraffin etc are obtained.” 17. Relying on these materials Dr. Saraf submits that crude oil is nothing but petroleum and as the tax on it was exempted by the notification under section 8 (5) of the Central Act as quoted above, the authority has no jurisdiction to assess the tax. 18. On the other hand, Dr. Todi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that relying on (1985) 60 Sales Tax Case 89 (Chiranjit Lai Anand vs. State of Assam & another) for understanding the meaning of a term resorts should be not the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning that is the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below : “It is well settled that in interpreting item is in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the term or expressions used but to their popular meaning, ie, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them (emphasis supplied). If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined. But in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment, the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. See the observations of this Court in Indo International Industries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 47 STC 359 (SC); (1981) 3 SCR 294 and also in the case of His Majesty the King vs. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited (1951) GLR (Ex) 122 (which decision was approved by this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, (1967) 19 STC 460 (SC); (1972) 2 SCR 720.” 19. But as will be evident from that judgment itself the Supreme Court relied on the dictionary meaning in order understand and appreciate the meaning of 'meat on hoof. So, this contention of Dr. Todi, cannot be accepted straightway. The Court has a right to look to the dictionary and other scientific and technical meaning to understand the meaning. As will be evident from the last notification under section 8 (5), the exemption was granted up to 31st July, 1972 and as the exemption was granted by the notification upto 31st July, 1972, the question to impose tax up to this date shall not arise. 20. In view of the position of law as mentioned above, now let us have to the fact of each case to find out whether the petitioner can be exempted from the sales tax. 21. Let us take up first Civil Rule No.2666 of 1991. In this case the sale was upto 30.6.71, so the petitioner shall get benefit of the notification under section 8 (5) of the Act as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ application. 21. Let us take up first Civil Rule No.2666 of 1991. In this case the sale was upto 30.6.71, so the petitioner shall get benefit of the notification under section 8 (5) of the Act as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ application. In Civil Rule No.2665 of 1991, this was for the period ending 30.9.71, so the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of section 8 (5) of the notification. In Civil RuleNo.2677 of 1991, the period is upto 30.6.72, so the petitioner shall be allowed to the benefit under section 8 (5) of the notification. In Civil Rule No.2668 of 1991, the period was upto 31.3.72 and the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of notification under section 8 (5). In Civil Rule No.2670of 1991 the period is upto31.12.71 and' the petitioner entitled to the notification under section 8 (5). In Civil Rule No.2676 of 1991, the period was upto 30.9.72. As there is no notification extending the period beyond 31.7.72, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit under section 8 (5) and accordingly, this Civil Rule shall stand dismissed. In all other Civil Rules ie Civil Rules No.2665, 2666, 2667, 2668 and 2670 of 1991, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of the notification under section 8(5) and the respondents are bound to give effect to the notification under section 8 (5) of the Central Act and to that extent these Civil Rules shall be deemed to be allowed. 22. The next question which will arise is that whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the money as claimed. On this Court Dr. Todi draws my attention to the records and point out that even tax which was paid by the petitioner has already been realised by them from the Barauni Refinery and if has not come forward to claim any refund and if this refund is allowed to the petitioner that will amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the petitioner. Dr.Todi further points out that these sales taxes which were collected was included in the price of petroleum and that has been realised at the enhanced rate from the innumerable consumers and the petitioner's company has not suffered any loss whatsoever on the count of those taxes and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the refund as claimed. 23. 23. In connection with the claim for refund Dr. Saraf relies on the following decisions : (1995) 2 GLR31 [1995 (1) GLJ 537] (Kanubari Forests Products (P) Ltd & seven others vs. State of Nagaland) wherein this Court after considering the case in paragraph 24, laid down the law as follows : “1. Normally, if tax or duty is realised by mistake from a dealer or a manufacturer, is entitled to receive back the money so realised by the authority under mistake. 2. High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may grant consequential relief by way of refund of money within the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of the money in a suit. 3. If, however, money was realised under a particular Act and there is a provision for retention of the said tax or duty though recovered by mistake and if any provision is made under the particular Act for utilisation of the said money, refund may be refused for certain purpose which may benefit a section of the public. Even if there is no such provision for retention of money, but it is clearly established that the burden has been shifted to the consumer in that case also the refund may be refused.” 24. As I have found above that in the instant the burden has been shifted to the consumers, the refund as prayed for cannot be granted. The claim for refund is also to be rejected on the ground of delay inasmuch as these are matters of 1971 -72 and the claim for refund was agitated only in 1991. 25. Accordingly, the Civil Rules are disposed of as indicated above in the judgment.