AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is basically made for the purpose of obtaining order or orders in the nature of withdrawal, cancellation and/or rescind a notice of demand in form VII-L, order of assessment charging interest under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1985 and the purported order dated January 19, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 confirming the order of assessment and purported notice dated December 6, 1993 issued by the respondent No. 3 so far the direction of making payment of interest under Central Act for the period of four quarters ending with March 31, 1985 and all proceedings relating thereto amongst others. ( 2 ) MR. Sumit Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended before this Court that the petitioner is a unit of Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited Co. It carries on business of manufacturing jute goods from its jute mills within the State of West Bengal and also outside the State of West Bengal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and holding Registration Certificate Nos. AW/1007 and 1007/ (AW) Central respectively. ( 4 ) IT is well-known that jute industry of the country has been passing through acute financial crisis for various grounds including general recession. There was a change in the management in February, 1981. The new Board of Directors took all the responsibilities of the company including the liabilities under the Central Act. The petitioner filed necessary returns under the Central Act in respect of the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1985. The petitioner also paid the taxes but admittedly, there was a delay in making payment of tax. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1 assessed under the Central Act and levied tax to the extent of Rs. 37,79,941. 57. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was imposed as penalty for late payment of tax. Since the petitioner paid the tax along with return for a sum of Rs. 38,00,308 along with returns in fact, payment was made in excess of Rs. 366 after deducting the levy of tax and penalty. 37,79,941. 57. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was imposed as penalty for late payment of tax. Since the petitioner paid the tax along with return for a sum of Rs. 38,00,308 along with returns in fact, payment was made in excess of Rs. 366 after deducting the levy of tax and penalty. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. 1 was also assessed the petitioner by separate order of assessment and demanded under the Central Act for late payment of taxes. The demand of interest under the Central Act was made taking recourse to Section 10a of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Along with the order of assessment for interest the respondent No. 1 issued notice of demand for interest for the period of four quarters ending with March 31, 1985 in form VII-L under the Central Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal from such order of assessment charging interest under Central Act for the period of four quarters ending with March 31, 1985 before respondent No. 2. Inspite of preferring the appeal, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 8,64,261 as against the claim of interest without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. By an order dated January 19, 1985, the appeal was rejected confirming the order of assessment charging interest of Rs. 22,40,014 under the Central Act. ( 7 ) ON December 22, 1999, your petitioner was served with a notice by respondent No. 3 under Memo No. 171 (CD-210) 99-2000 dated December 6, 1999 directing the petitioner to make payment of the assessed dues towards interest under the Central Act for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1985 within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the notice. ( 8 ) UPON receipt of such notice on December 22, 1999, the petitioner made with his Advocate for the purpose of necessary advice when he came to know that in view of India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam, interest levied under the Central Act for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1985 was wholly illegal. ( 8 ) UPON receipt of such notice on December 22, 1999, the petitioner made with his Advocate for the purpose of necessary advice when he came to know that in view of India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam, interest levied under the Central Act for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1985 was wholly illegal. It was further informed that following such Supreme Court judgment, this Court also in a case Re: Pacheria Castings Pvt. Ltd. in W. P. No. 2273 of 1998 Reported in [2002] 125 STC 142 has held interest was not leviable and sales tax authorities were directed to refund amount of interest. Therefore, the notice under form VII-L being assessment charging interest under the Central Act and notice for the same dated December 6, 1999 are bad, illegal, erroneous without and/or excess of jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THERE is no independent provision in the matter of assessment under the Central Act. All the provisions of general sales tax laws of general State in respect of an assessment would apply to the Central Act under Section 9 of the same. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 although considered the procedure of the 1941 Act for making assessment under the Central Act, but has wrongly made assessment of interest which did not provide for the same. Therefore, provision for assessment under the 1941 Act can be applied for making assessment under the Central Act. ( 10 ) SECTION 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 made provisions for levy, collection of tax and penalties. Sub-section 9 (2) of the Central Act provides that the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax laws of the appropriate State shall on behalf of the Government of India, assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax including any penalty payable by a dealer under this Act as if, the tax or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax laws of the State inclusive of other powers. ( 11 ) UNDER Section 9 (2a) which was inserted with effect from September 7, 1976 all the provisions relating to offences and penalties of the general sales tax laws of each State shall with necessary modifications apply in relation to the assessment, reassessment, collection and enforcement of the payment of any tax required to be collected under this Act in such State or in relation to any process connected with such assessment, reassessment, collection or enforcement of payment as if, the tax under this Act were a tax under such sales tax law. ( 12 ) IN India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam it was held that sales tax authorities of a State must apply in assessing and collecting Central sales tax the Central Sales Tax Act. In such application, for procedural purposes alone the provisions of the State Act are available. The provisions of the latter part of Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 can be employed only if the Central Act makes a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on Central sales tax and only to that extent. There being no Central Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax, the sales tax authorities of the State cannot, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing payment of Central sales tax charge interest thereon. Therefore, in effect, the Supreme Court held that Section 9 is a procedural law, but not the substantive law to get the answer as to the question of imposition or non-imposition of interest under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Since such law has a binding effect, there is no further necessity of further discussion in respect thereto. Now the further question arose before this Court about the applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 265 of the Constitution of India no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. ( 13 ) MR. L. K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that this is not a case of a tax but of interest. Therefore, there is no such provision to make a refund of such sum by invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the proper remedy to institute a suit. It is further important that amount has already paid in 1995. Therefore, there is no such provision to make a refund of such sum by invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the proper remedy to institute a suit. It is further important that amount has already paid in 1995. Therefore, there are two aspects which are to be considered by this Court that whether under the writ jurisdiction an authority can be directed to refund such amount to the petitioner and ratio of the judgment reported in India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam [1997] 106 STC 460 cannot be applicable in this case which is only dealt with the issue as to whether Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is the procedural provision or a substantive provision. There is no provision for refund in any event whatsoever. ( 14 ) IN reply thereto, the petitioner contended that not only the other single Bench of this Court but the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court decided this issue of refund as well as applicability of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In [1988] 69 STC 290 (Salonah Tea Company Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong) the Supreme Court of India held that the taxes collected without the authority of law from a citizen should be refunded because no State has the right to receive or to retain taxes or monies realised from citizens without the authority of law. The court, in an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution has power to direct the refund unless there have been avoidable laches on the part of the petitioner which indicate either the abandonment of his claims, or for which there is no probable explanation or which will cause injury to either the respondent or any third party. The period of three years, prescribed under the Limitation Act as the time within which recovery of money paid under a mistake must be claimed by a suit in a civil court, is ordinarily taken as the period beyond which the court should not grant relief Under Article 226, but this is not an inflexible rule. Where, despite delay and creation of third party rights, the demand of justice is compelling, the High Court may in the exercise of discretion, interfere and grant relief. Where, despite delay and creation of third party rights, the demand of justice is compelling, the High Court may in the exercise of discretion, interfere and grant relief. ( 15 ) THE petitioner has further relied upon [1994] 93 STC 194 (Ker) [south India Corporation Private Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), Sales Tax Office, Spl. Circle, Mattancherry, Cochin] wherein a single Bench of the Kerala High Court has also decided this issue holding affirmatively in respect of order of refund under the writ jurisdiction of this court. Although, several discussions were held as above. But the short compass of the matter is whether the authority can claim interest out of the tax and if such claim was made and the same was deposited whether the petitioner is within the reasonable time and within the scope and ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution can get such refund or not. ( 16 ) A penalty or interest cannot be leviable by a statutory authority unless and until there is an original claim of tax. Can it be said that when tax is not leviable the penalty or the interest has to be paid ? my answer is "no". ( 17 ) THE very foundation of the claim of penalty or interest, if any, is arising out of the originally claim of tax. Therefore, by virtue of the claim on the part of the authority or by virtue of the payability on the part of the petitioner such part of penalty or interest become part and parcel of the tax unless law prohibits and says that a part should be eliminated. Therefore, when such part of elimination, by virtue of the interpretation of the Supreme Court of India, for the purpose of getting refund arising out of the tax definitely gives power to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of redressal. Hence, whether the money refundable is tax or interest as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is purely academic. Both are purportedly arising out of a claim of the authority. A conjoint reading of both the Supreme Court judgments speaks that such refund is obviously be made by the authority under an order of the writ jurisdiction of this Court since by virtue of the intervention of the law such part declared not as a tax. Both are purportedly arising out of a claim of the authority. A conjoint reading of both the Supreme Court judgments speaks that such refund is obviously be made by the authority under an order of the writ jurisdiction of this Court since by virtue of the intervention of the law such part declared not as a tax. Hence, I think that the writ jurisdiction is rightly invoked and the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the sum. ( 18 ) LAST but not the least, there was also a discussion in respect of the limitation. Admittedly, the demand was made, in 1999, admittedly, the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on July 16, 1997 See [1997] 106 STC 460. Therefore, there is also no embargo on this part in making the claim by making the writ petition within the three years' period or within the reasonable time since the same is not inflexible rule. ( 19 ) THUS, the writ petition succeeds in all respects. The authority concerned is directed to refund the sum collected by way of interest within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communications of the order without fail. However, no order is passed as to costs. Prayer for stay is made, considered and refused.