JUDGMENT All these civil rules raised the common questions of law and facts and as such they are taken up for hearing together. The facts of civil rules being C.R. Nos. 550, 551, 552, 549, 548 and 547 of 1989 are as follows : The petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act (hereinafter "the Act", in short). The petitioner-company deals in pine square beams the purchase value thereof is taxable under the Act. The petitioner-company submitted its returns of turnover for the period ending June 30, 1981, September 30, 1981, March 31, 1982, June 30, 1982, September 30, 1982 and December 31, 1982, showing the purchase value of pine square beams as per books of accounts and deposited the taxes due as per returns at the specified rate of 15 per cent of the purchase value shown in the returns. The above figures have been given in the respective writ petition. On March 19, 1983, in compliance to notice under section 8(2) of the Act, the petitioner-company produced its books of account before the respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of Taxes in support of the returns filed. On examination of the accounts and documents, the respondent No. 2 completed the assessments of the above periods, vide orders of assessment dated March 19, 1983, under section 8(3) of the Act. In the assessment orders, the respondent No. 2 recorded its finding that the dealer purchased pine square beams only during the period concerned and that the purchases were recorded properly and also supported by audited balance sheet. The turnover shown in the returns was accepted and demand of taxes was raised at the rate of 15 per cent of the said turnover. The rate of 15 per cent tax was applied as applicable to converted timber under the Act. Rate of tax as prescribed by the Schedule to the principal Act as amended from time to time was raised on the petitioner-company since it had paid the demanded tax already as admitted taxes along with the returns filed. The assessment order is quoted below : "Shri A. P. Singh, Accountant of the dealer appeared in compliance to the notice under section 8(2) and produced the abovementioned accounts and documents which were examined. The dealer purchased pine square beams only within the State of Meghalaya. The assessment order is quoted below : "Shri A. P. Singh, Accountant of the dealer appeared in compliance to the notice under section 8(2) and produced the abovementioned accounts and documents which were examined. The dealer purchased pine square beams only within the State of Meghalaya. On examination of the accounts produced, it was found that the dealer purchased beams worth Rs. 11,86,597 during the period concerned. Purchases were recorded properly and also supported by audited balance sheet. No irregularity was observed. Hence the turnover is determined at Rs. 11,86,597. Assessment is made as follows : Turnover Rs. 11,86,597 Tax at 15 per cent Rs. 1,77,989 Tax paid vide bank certificate Ch. No. 432/B, 442/B, 538/B dated October 16, 1982, October 20, 1982 and March 15, 1983. Rs. 1,77,989 Tax due Rs........... Surcharge Rs........... Surcharge paid Rs........... Surcharge due Rs........... Interest paid Rs........... Interest due Rs........... Assessed under section 8(3). Sd/- Illegibal Superintendent of Taxes, Enforcement Branch, Meghalaya, Shillong." Similar order was passed in respect of the other civil rules except the amount. On August 2, 1988, after expiry of more than 5 years the respondent No. 3 issued notice dated August 2, 1988, in the purported exercise of suo motu power of revision under section 41(1) of the Act. The petitioner-company was directed to show cause on or before August 23, 1988, against cancellation of original assessment orders for the period from April 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982 and making of fresh assessment on the ground that the petitioner-company had been assessed at the lower rate of 15 per cent in respect of timber logs instead of the relevant rate of 30 per cent as per provisions of the Act. The copy of the show cause is annexure II to all the writ applications and that is quoted below : "Sub : Show cause against cancellation of the original assessment orders assessed at the lower rate of tax for the period ending April 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982, under the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act. The copy of the show cause is annexure II to all the writ applications and that is quoted below : "Sub : Show cause against cancellation of the original assessment orders assessed at the lower rate of tax for the period ending April 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982, under the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act. Whereas it has come to my notice that for the period ending April 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982, you have been assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes (Enforcement Branch) at the lower rate of 15 per cent of Meghalaya Purchase Tax in respect of timber logs purchased by you instead of the relevant rate of 30 per cent as per provisions of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act you are hereby required to show cause in writing so as to reach this office on or before August 23, 1988 as to why the aforesaid assessment orders should not be cancelled and order for a fresh assessment be passed as per provision of section 41(1) of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act." Thereafter the time for submission of reply was extended up to October 28, 1988 by the respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated September 6, 1988. The petitioner-company filed a reply to the show cause notice vide its petition dated October 6, 1988/October 24, 1988, submitting that pine square beams purchased by it were converted timber and the original assessment were properly made. The aforesaid reply is annexure III to the writ application and that is quoted below : "We are in receipt of your above quoted letter allowing time up to October 28, 1988, in the above matter. This is to submit before your honour that we purchased pine square beams which are classified as roughly converted timber. In support of such contention, we enclose herewith a photo copy of a letter No. MFS : SF : 87-88 : Seedling, dated Shillong the September 26, 1988, from the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Circle, Meghalaya, Shillong which states as follows : 'With reference to the query above I am to inform you that pine square beams are classified as roughly converted timber. This is the first stage in the process of conversion from rough logs.' We further enclose a photo copy of a letter No. 617/IV-41/C.W. dated the September 14, 1988, from Shri K. S. Shukla, Officer-in-charge, Composite Wood Branch, Government of India, Forest Research Institute, P.O. New Forest, Dehradum (U. P.). In the said letter the institute has clearly clarified about the timber converted and conversion as under : (i) Timber converted. - Usually timber cut with the saw, but may include hewn timber, syn (lumber Am) (ii) Conversion : General remarks. - The conversion of trees in the forest implies the preparation of timber to meet the demands of all classes of markets whether local or distant 'Conversion' itself is generally taken to mean the process of producing sawn timber from the log. Further, it has also been written in the Indian Forest Utilization, Volume I, 1986 at page 15 that 'The conversion of trees in the forest implies the preparation of timber to meet the demands of all classes of markets whether local or distant.' 'Conversion' itself is generally taken to mean the process of producing sawn timber from the log. A rough classification of timber in the commercial sense is as follows : 1. Timber in the round, or logs. 2. Roughly converted timber, or timber squared with the axe, usually called baulks or rough squares. 3. Sawn timber, such as squares, beams, sleepers, scantlings and planks. Therefore, as we have purchased square beams we have been properly assessed to purchase tax by your department and we believe that there is no reason for cancelling the assessment in question which has been properly made. We further mention that in term of 'Meghalaya Purchase Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 which provided the liability for payment of tax in respect of item 5 of the Schedule as substituted by the Meghalaya Purchase Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 shall commence on and from the 1st April, 1981'. 5(a) Converted timber other than firewood - Fifteen paise per rupee value at which the taxable goods are purchased. Therefore, we conclude by stating that the assessments have been properly done." Similar is the reply in respect of all other civil rules. 5(a) Converted timber other than firewood - Fifteen paise per rupee value at which the taxable goods are purchased. Therefore, we conclude by stating that the assessments have been properly done." Similar is the reply in respect of all other civil rules. The points which were highlighted in the reply were, inter alia, as follows : (i) Letter dated September 26, 1988, issued by the Conservator of Forests, Meghalaya, stating that pine square beams are classified as roughly converted timber. (ii) Letter dated September 14, 1988, issued by the officer-in-charge, Composite Wood Branch, Government of India, Forest Research Institute P.O. New Forest, Dehradun (U.P.) clarifying the classification of timber in the commercial sense into three categories which were quite different and distinct from each other. (iii) The respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated December 31, 1988 (annexure IV) cancelled the original assessments with a direction to make fresh assessments with a holding that pine square beams were unconverted timber and the tax rate of 15 per cent was wrongly applied. That annexure IV is quoted below : "Dealer is absent. Heard the dealer and perused the case record with reference to the documents furnished by him. Perused also the assessment order for the period from April 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982, in which the dealer has been assessed to tax at the rate of fifteen paise per rupee value at which the taxable goods were purchased. The relevant rates of tax as per the Schedule of taxable goods attached to the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act are as follows : For the period from April 1, 1981 to July 19, 1982 Serial No. Name of taxable goods Rate of tax 5. (a) Converted timber other Fifteen paise per rupee than firewood value at which the taxable goods are purchased. (b) Logs other than firewood Thirty paise per rupee value at which the taxable goods are purchased. For the period from July 20, 1982 to December 31, 1982. Serial No. Name of taxable goods Rate of tax 5. (a) Unconverted timber including Fifty paise per rupee logs, poles and goods of value at which the any shape or undressed taxable goods are but excluding firewood. purchased. (b) Converted timber other than Fifteen paise per rupee items mentioned at (a) above. Serial No. Name of taxable goods Rate of tax 5. (a) Unconverted timber including Fifty paise per rupee logs, poles and goods of value at which the any shape or undressed taxable goods are but excluding firewood. purchased. (b) Converted timber other than Fifteen paise per rupee items mentioned at (a) above. value at which the taxable goods are purchased." But in determining the question of the type of timber what is found most relevant and on which reliance can be placed is the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Kuttirayin and Co. v. State of Kerala reported in [1976] 38 STC 282 wherein the High Court decided as follows : ".....we are of the view that planks and scantlings are commercial articles different from the logs from which they are sawn. At any rate, they do not remain the same commercial article, for one who requires planks or scantlings would not go to a timber-yard and ask for timber logs or vice versa. So far as sizes are concerned we at not aware of any such commodity. If timber logs are cut into sizes to facilitate transport, stacking, etc., it cannot be said that commercial articles different from timber logs emerge. On the other hand, logs sized into beams, sleepers, etc., are different commercial articles which are sold and purchased as beams, sleepers, etc., and not as timber logs." From the record, it is clear that the dealers purchased pine square logs which are unconverted timber for the purpose of conversion into sawn timber like plank, scantling, etc., at his saw mill. The contention of the petitioner that the pine square beams, purchased by him were converted timber and taxable at the rate of 15 per cent cannot, therefore, be accepted. The reason being the such pine square beams are nothing but pine square logs obtained from round logs by peeling off the bark and roughly slicing the sides to facilitate transport, stacking, etc., and it cannot be said after such type of so-called conversion that they are new commercial articles different from timber logs. The meaning must be given as understood in common parlance and in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana reported in [1973] 32 STC 623 is very relevant. The meaning must be given as understood in common parlance and in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana reported in [1973] 32 STC 623 is very relevant. In this case, the Supreme Court has firmly held that in finding out the true meaning and entries mentioned in the Sales Tax Act, what is relevant is not the dictionary meaning, but how these entries are understood in common parlance specially in commercial circles. As such, the pine square beams purchased by the dealers cannot, therefore, be equated with converted timber such as plank, scantlings, etc., which are commercial articles different from pine square logs or pine square beams from which they are sawn. Therefore, there is no doubt, whatsoever that pine square beams are logs and unconverted timber taxable at the rate of 30 per cent for the period from April 1, 1981 to July 19, 1982 and at the rate of 50 per cent for the period from July 20, 1982 to December 31, 1982. In this connection in reply to the letter received from the Honorary General Secretary, Frontier Chamber of Commerce, Shillong, the then Commissioner of Taxes, Meghalaya has issued a clear official clarification vide his letter No. CTA/14/82/2530 dated July 20, 1982 that logs included pine square beams. In consideration of the above, I am of the opinion that the Superintendent of Taxes committed an error by assessing the dealers at the rate of 15 per cent as the dealers purchased logs which are unconverted timber. This error on the part of the assessing officer is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessment is, therefore, cancelled and it is hereby ordered that a fresh assessment is made accordingly. Send copy of the order to the dealer and return the assessment case record to the Superintendent of Taxes-in-charge, Purchase Tax along with a copy of this order." Similar order was passed in each of the cases. The petitioner-company challenged the above order dated December 31, 1988, in the writ petitions, vide order dated April 20, 1989, this honourable Court issued rule. Proceedings as directed by the impugned order dated December 31, 1988, were allowed to continue. The petitioner-company was asked to pay half of the tax when ascertained and the collection of balance amount was stayed pending the writ petitions. Proceedings as directed by the impugned order dated December 31, 1988, were allowed to continue. The petitioner-company was asked to pay half of the tax when ascertained and the collection of balance amount was stayed pending the writ petitions. On November 15, 1989, the petitioner-company filed applications for modification of the interim order dated April 20, 1989, when the respondent No. 2 made fresh assessment vide orders of assessment dated June 6, 1989, under section 8(3) of the Act raising huge demand of tax. This Court directed payment of 25 per cent of the demanded tax till the disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner-company paid the taxes as directed. The brief facts in C.R. Nos. 915, 916 and 917 of 1987 are as follows : On April 25, 1983, assessments were completed by respondent No. 2 Superintendent of Taxes vide orders of assessment dated April 25, 1983. Interest was levied under section 21 of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act and under rule 22 of the aforesaid Act. That is quoted below : "Shri B. P. Bajoria, a partner appeared in compliance to the notice under section 8(2) and produced the abovementioned account books and documents only which were examined. The dealer purchased pine square logs only. On examination of the accounts produced, it was found that the dealer purchased logs worth Rs. 3,30,671. Purchases were found to be recorded properly and also vouched for. No irregularity was observed. Assessment is made as follows : Turnover Rs. 3,30,671.00 Tax at 15 per cent Rs. 49,600.65 Tax paid vide : (a) Ch. No. 1024/B dated March 24, 1982 (b) Ch. No. 654/B dated June 21, 1982 Rs. 40,627.00 Tax due Rs. 8,973.65 Surcharge Rs. 485.00 Surcharge paid Nil Surcharge due Rs. 496.00 Interest Rs. 11,453.64 Interest paid Nil Interest due Rs. 11,453.64 Assessment under section 8(3) Draw up assessment order and issue demand notice Sd/- D.R. Lanong 25-4-1983 Superintendent of Taxes, Meghalaya, Shillong." Similar order was passed in the other civil rules. The petitioner-firm filed revisions against the assessment orders dated the April 25, 1983, before the respondent No. 3 under section 41(2) of the Act. Prayer for stay was also made. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated November 7, 1983 (annexure II) stayed the payment of the disputed demand. The petitioner-firm filed revisions against the assessment orders dated the April 25, 1983, before the respondent No. 3 under section 41(2) of the Act. Prayer for stay was also made. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated November 7, 1983 (annexure II) stayed the payment of the disputed demand. On December 2, 1985 the respondent No. 3 vide order dated December 2, 1985 rejected the revisions by holding inter alia, as follows : In period ending December 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981 : Interest is found to have been levied as per provisions of law. Contentions of petitioner against levy of interest cannot be entertained. In period ending June 30, 1981 : (1) Superintendent of Taxes was right in assessing the dealer at the rate of tax as per item 5(b) of Schedule (2) Contentions against levy of interest cannot be entertained since the same has been levied in accordance with law. In C.R. Nos. 915 and 916 of 1987 interest is challenged and in C.R. No. 917 of 1987 both the tax and interest are challenged. The revisional order is annexure III which is quoted below : "There are two revision petitions against levy of interest in the order of assessment of the Superintendent of Taxes, Shillong dated April 25, 1983, for the periods ending December 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981. The issues being same in both the two petitions, I dispose the same by one order. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner (G. K. Joshi) and perused the assessment order both the periods. The interests for both the periods is found to have been levied as per the provision of law. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner against the levy of interest cannot be entertained. The result is that the revision petition fails." Two sets of affidavit-in-opposition have been filed - one in C.R. No. 547 of 1989 group and the other in C.R. No. 915 of 1987 group. In C.R. No. 547 of 1989 group it is stated inter alia, as follows : 1. Pine square beams obviously being timber without branches - cut into square logs taxable at 30 per cent rupee value. 2. In C.R. No. 547 of 1989 group it is stated inter alia, as follows : 1. Pine square beams obviously being timber without branches - cut into square logs taxable at 30 per cent rupee value. 2. Entry 5 of the Schedule of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act which is statutory law and binding on the States recognised only two categories of timber, viz., converted timber other than firewood and logs other than firewood and there is no intermediate category like roughly converted timber. 3. Pine square beams are not converted timber within the meaning of entry 5(a) and are taxable at 30 per cent as specified in entry 5(b) of the Schedule to the Meghalaya Purchase Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981. 4. Pine square beams cannot be treated as converted timber inasmuch as it is virtually sized log only peeled off for the convenience of transportation and it needs further conversion for preparation of sawn timber. Timbers which are not fully converted into sawn timbers are considered as unconverted logs. In C.R. No. 915 of 1987 group in the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated, inter alia, as follows : 1. Interest has been levied as per the provision of section 21 of the Act and rule 22 of the Rules. Non-submission of return means non-payment of tax due as per return. I have heard Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the group of civil rules and Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned Advocate-General, Meghalaya for the respondents in both the groups of civil rules. The contentions of Mr. Bhattacharjee in C.R. No. 547 of 1989 group are as follows : 1. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and not tenable in law. Pine square beams are converted timber and not logs. So, tax payable on it as per entry No. 5(a) shall subsist at the rate of 15 per cent. 2. The earlier order cannot be cancelled by resorting to suo motu power of revision under section 41(1) of the Act without any reasonable ground, process or material. 3. Pine logs cannot be square shape in any circumstances. Pine logs can be square shape only after conversion. 4. The petitioner-company purchased pine square beams and not pine logs. So the question of levying 30 per cent of tax by applying entry 5(b) does not arise. 3. Pine logs cannot be square shape in any circumstances. Pine logs can be square shape only after conversion. 4. The petitioner-company purchased pine square beams and not pine logs. So the question of levying 30 per cent of tax by applying entry 5(b) does not arise. In C.R. No. 915 of 1987 group regarding interest the petitioner-company relies on the case of India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in (1990) 1 GLR 239 wherein rule 42A of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was declared ultra vires section 35A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 as existing prior to December 15, 1977. Old section 35A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 and rule 42A of the Assam Sales Tax Rules are analogous to section 21 (as existing prior to December 15, 1977) of the Assam Purchase Tax Act, 1967 and rule 22 of the Assam Purchase Tax Rules, 1969. The State of Meghalaya adapted the Assam laws. Amendments made with effect from December 15, 1977 in the Assam Acts have not been adapted by the State of Meghalaya. Before we proceed to consider the contentions, let us have a look at the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The relevant Act is the Meghalaya Purchase Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981. The Schedule which is relevant provides as follows : "5.(a) Converted timber other Fifteen paise per rupee value than firewood at which the taxable goods are purchased. (b) Logs other than firewood Thirty paise per rupee value at which the taxable goods are purchased." In C.R. No. 915 of 1987 group the provisions relevant are the same Act and the section 21 of the Act which provides for levy of interest are quoted below : "21. Interest payable by dealer. - (1) If any registered dealer does not pay into a Government treasury the full amount of tax due from him under this Act on the basis of the return or his account books within the prescribed date, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the first day of the month next following the said date shall be payable by the dealer upon the amount by which the tax so paid falls short of the amount of tax payable as per his return or account books. If such amount of tax and interest are not paid within thirty days from the date from which the interest is due, simple interest upto a maximum of 24 per cent shall be payable as may be prescribed. (2) Where on making the assessment, the Commissioner finds that a dealer has not maintained the account books properly and thereby he has suppressed the purchase of goods in any period, the Commissioner may direct him to pay interest as prescribed in sub-section (1). If the amount of tax payable under the Act has been reduced in appeal or revision, the interest may be calculated on the reduced amount. (3) If any registered dealer does not pay into the Government treasury the amount of tax within the date as provided in sub-section (4) of section 20 or any instalment of the tax within the extended date as per proviso to sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act, interest as provided in sub-section (1) shall be payable from the first day of the month next following the said date by the dealer upon the amount by which the tax, if any, paid falls short of the amount of tax payable under the Act." Rule 22 of the Rules reads as follows : "22. If a dealer does not submit the return and pay the amount of tax due from him within the date specified in rule 16, he shall be liable to pay a simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of tax assessed from the first day of the second month of the end of the quarter or period, as the case may be, to which such return may relate; the rate of interest shall be nine per centum per annum from the first day of the third month and twelve per centum per annum from the first day of the fourth month and twenty-four per centum per annum from the first day of the fifth month and the succeeding months of the period, during which the tax payable for the quarter/period remains unpaid. Provided that where a dealer has paid a part of the tax due on any date after the expiry of thirty days of the end of such quarter, he shall be liable to pay interest at the appropriate rate on the whole of the amount of tax assessed up to the date of part payment and thereafter on the balance tax payable. Provided further that where the tax paid by the dealer at the time of submission of the return is or exceeds 90 per centum of the tax finally assessed no interest may be charged." The prayers made in C.R. No. 547 of 1989 group are to quash the impugned order dated December 31, 1988 (annexure IV) quoted above and in C.R. No. 917 of 1987 group the prayers are to quash the impugned order dated December 2, 1985 (annexure III) and also for a declaration that section 21 of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act and rule 22 of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Rules be declared ultra vires, illegal and void. In C.R. No. 547 of 1989 group the only relevant question is that whether the pine square beams are converted timbers. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the following materials by the petitioner : 1. The definition of beam is given as follows : "A structural timber generally long in proportion to its width and thickness and used for supporting load primarily by its internal resistance to bending. In commercial practices it is sometimes used to mean 'flitches'." 2. The letter dated September 14, 1988 written by the Office-in-charge, Composite Wood Branch, Government of India, Forest Research Institute, P.O. New Forest, Dehra Dun (U.P.) wherein the definition of timber converted is given as follows : "Timber converted. Usually timber cut with the saw, but may include hewn timber. Syn. Lumour (Am)." 3. Conversion is described as follows : "Conversion - General remarks The conversion of trees in the forest implies the preparation of timber to meet the demands of all classes of markets whether local or distant. 'Conversion' itself is generally taken to mean the process of producing sawn timber from the log. A rough classification of timber in the commercial sense is as follows : 1. Timber in the round, or logs. 2. Roughly converted timber, or timber squared with the axe, usually called baulks or rough squares. 3. 'Conversion' itself is generally taken to mean the process of producing sawn timber from the log. A rough classification of timber in the commercial sense is as follows : 1. Timber in the round, or logs. 2. Roughly converted timber, or timber squared with the axe, usually called baulks or rough squares. 3. Sawn timber such as squares, beams, sleepers, scantlings and planks. (Source : Indian Woods Volume I, Delhi)." 4. In Indian Forest Utilisation description of conversion is given as follows : "Description of converted wood : The nomenclature of converted wood varies but broadly speaking, the following are the most common terms used : (1) Squares or baulks .. These may be with or without wane. (2) Beams .. Usually rectangular and free from wane. Rough conversion in the forest : Timber can be squared in the forest by means of an axe into baulks or rough squares, when a special demand exists for this class of produce or when it is necessary to reduce the weight of timber to facilitate transport. Rough squaring is usually done in the Himalayan forests. This is, however, a wasteful process and should be avoided as far as possible." 4. The meanings of the words 'beams', 'log' and 'square' are given in Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eleventh Edition and they are quite distinguished from each and other. The admitted position in these two groups of cases is that the dealers purchased pine square beams and pine square beams is not available in the natural stage and it will require some amount of conversion to make it pine square beams and it will be converted timber whether it is rough conversion or not is a different question altogether. Even the Conservator of Forests, S.F. Circle, Meghalaya Shillong admitted that pine square beams are classified as roughly converted timber as will be evident from letter dated September 26, 1988 written by him to the petitioner-company. That letter is quoted below : "With reference to the query above, I am to inform you that pine square beams are classified as roughly converted timber. This is the first stage in the process of conversion from round log." Log is the stem of a tree that is felled and prepared for conversion. Without some amount of conversion, from a log one cannot get pine square beams. This is the first stage in the process of conversion from round log." Log is the stem of a tree that is felled and prepared for conversion. Without some amount of conversion, from a log one cannot get pine square beams. In the impugned order of revision it is dated that the dealers purchased pine square logs which are unconverted timber. Pine square beams are not available in the natural stage which requires some amount of conversion. The reasons given by the Commissioner is that the pine square beams the nothing but pine square logs obtained from round logs by peeling off the bark and roughly slicing the sides to facilitate transportation. This reasoning is not a sound reasoning. The Supreme Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana reported in [1973] 32 STC 623 has firmly held that in finding out the true meaning and entries mentioned in the Sales Tax Act, what is relevant is not the dictionary meaning, but how these entries are understood in common parlance specially in commercial circle. But nothing has been shown in the impugned order that in commercial circle pine square beams are accepted as logs. In view of that matter I hold that this order of the Commissioner that pine square beams are logs cannot be accepted and accordingly that is quashed. The next question which comes for consideration is regarding the tax. In support of this contention reliance is placed in (1990) 1 GLR 239 (India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam), where there was a difference of opinion and on such difference, the matter was placed before the third Judge and the third Judge in para 59 of the judgment has laid down as follows : "A combined reading of section 35A and rule 42A makes it clear that the latter has transgressed the provision finding place in the former inasmuch as according to the section interest becomes due on the amount determined on the basis of the return whereas under the rule the interest has been made payable on the amount of the tax assessed. It is too well-known that the amount assessed in many cases exceed the amount of return. It is too well-known that the amount assessed in many cases exceed the amount of return. As a rule cannot overstep a section, in my opinion, rule 42A has to read down in the sense that interest has to be determined on the basis of the return filed and not on the basis of the tax assessed. Another overstepping of the rule which has been brought to my notice that the rule applies to all dealers whereas the section speaks of registered dealer. As to this the submission of Shri Talukdar is that section 9 of the State Act visualises compulsory registration also not much difference has been created by the two different terminology used in the two provisions. Though this submission of Shri Talukdar has force inasmuch as the liability to submit return is on the person who is liable to pay tax in which case registration is compulsory and under section 10 of the State Act the Commissioner may himself register a particular dealer, yet the rule could not have imposed the liability on every dealer as the section speaks of registered dealer." and in para 62(3) it was held as follows : "Rule 42A of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947 is ultra vires, section 35A of the State Act to the extent that the former visualises charging the interest on the tax assessed as distinguished from the tax due as per return. As a result, interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return, and that too from registered dealers." and the following order was passed ultimately which quoted below : "RAGHUVIR, C.J. - After the opinion of the 3rd Judge is received, and after hearing the learned counsel of both sides the following order is passed : 'As per the judgment of the Chief Justice, rule 42A is valid. As per the judgment of the Home Choudhury, J., the rule 42A is held ultra vires of the Act 17 of 1947'." As Per the judgment of the Hansaria, J., as indicated in sub-para (3) of para 14 which reads as under : "(3) Rule 42A of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947 is ultra vires section 35A of the State Act to the extent that the former visualises charging of interest on the tax assessed as distinguished from the tax due as per return. As a result, interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return, and that too from registered dealers." In our view, the majority view is the view indicated in sub-para (3) of para 14 of Hansaria, J. The respondents authorities are directed to reckon interest as above. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. All interlocutory orders passed are hereby vacated. No costs." As indicated above, this rule and section of the Meghalaya Act is pari materia with the Assam Act and Rules because it was the Assam Act and Rules which was adapted by the State of Meghalaya. Mr. Lahiri, the learned Advocate-General, Meghalaya contends that this case is not an authority for the decision of the present controversy. But I cannot accept this contention. In this connection, Mr. Lahiri relies on [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC); (1994) 4 SCC 276 (J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer) where in para 9 (at pages 432-433 of STC) and 16 (at pages 436-437 of STC) the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : "Before we proceed further we must emphasise that penalty provisions in a statute have to be strictly construed and that is why we have pointed out earlier that the considerations which may weigh with the authority as well as the court in construing penal provisions would be different from those which would weigh in construing a provision providing for payment of interest on unpaid amount of tax which ought to have been paid. Section 3, read with section 5 of the Act, is the charging provision whereas the rest of the provisions provide the machinery for the levy and collection of the tax. In order to ensure prompt collection of the tax due certain penal provisions are made to deal with erring dealers and defaulters and these provisions being penal in nature would have to be construed strictly. But the machinery provisions need not be strictly construed. The machinery provisions must be so construed as would enable smooth and effective collection of the tax from the dealers liable to pay tax under the statute. Section 11B provides for levy of interest on failure of the dealer to pay tax due under the Act and within the time allowed. But the machinery provisions need not be strictly construed. The machinery provisions must be so construed as would enable smooth and effective collection of the tax from the dealers liable to pay tax under the statute. Section 11B provides for levy of interest on failure of the dealer to pay tax due under the Act and within the time allowed. Should this provision be strictly construed or should it receive a broad and liberal construction, is a question which we will have to consider in determining the sweep of the said provision. We will do so at the appropriate stage but for the present we may notice the thrust of this Court's decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 466" (para 9) "It is well-known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability effective. It, therefore provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section, and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters. Provision is also made for charging interest on delayed payments, etc. Ordinarily the charging section which fixes the liability is strictly construed but that rule of strict construction is not extended to the machinery provisions which are construed like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1926] AC 37, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC), India United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC); [1955] 1 SCR 810 and Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); [1963] 3 SCR 893). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. (See Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. (See Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji AIR 1938 PC 67 and Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram [1964] 3 SCR 164 at 185 to 190). Our attention was, however, drawn by Mr. Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. v. M. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433 (SC) and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC), all that the court pointed out was that provision for charging interest was, it seems, introduced in order to compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged on the strength of a statutory provision, may be its objective was to compensate the Revenue for delay in payment of tax. But regardless of the reason which impelled the Legislature to provide for charging interest, the court must give that meaning to it as is conveyed by the language used and the purpose to be achieved. 'Therefore, any provision made in a statute for charging or levying interest on delayed payment of tax must be construed as a substantive law and not adjectival law. So construed and applying the normal rule of interpretation of statutes, we find, as pointed out by us earlier and by Bhagwati, J. in the Associated Cement Company's case [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC), that if the Revenue's contention is accepted it leads to conflicts and creates certain anomalies which could never have been intended by the Legislature." and he submits that on the authority of this case, the question of declaring this rule 22 to be ultra vires of section 21 does not arise. But as indicated above, I am bound by the judgment in (1990) 1 GLR 237 (India Corbon Ltd. v. State of Assam). In view of that matter, I declare that rule 22 of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Rules is ultra vires of section 21 to the extent that the Rule visualises charging of interest on tax assessed as distinguished from the tax due as per return. As a result, interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return, and that too from registered dealers. The levy of interest as done in these cases shall stand quashed. As a result, interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return, and that too from registered dealers. The levy of interest as done in these cases shall stand quashed. All the civil rules shall stand disposed of as indicated above holding that pine square beams are converted timbers and that interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return. Petitions allowed.