JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. — This is the third time that the petitioner company has come to this Court for sales tax benefits under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986. 2. The State Government of Orissa formulated the Industri¬al Policy Resolution, 1986 effective from 1.4.1986 announcing a package of incentives to new industrial units including exemption from sales tax on purchase of raw materials for a period of five years from the date of commercial production. Accordingly, by Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987, entry 26-D (i) was inserted in the Tax Free Schedule exempting purchase of raw materials by new industrial units from sales tax for a period of five years from the date of commercial production. The petitioner set up a re-rolling mill at A/3, Kalunga Industrial Estate, Kalunga and commenced commercial production on 2.10.1987. The petitioner was initially allowed exemption from payment of sales tax on purchase of raw materials under Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986, but the said exemption was withdrawn by the Project Manager, District Industrial Centre, Rourkela who took a view that the petitioner was entitled to incentives under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1980 and not under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court O.J.C. No. 1712 of 1989 and by judgment dated 8th of May, 1990, a Division Bench of this Court held that the industrial unit of the petitioner was entitled to enjoy the incentives under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 in the manner and to the extent specified therein. Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner was, inter alia, allowed exemption of sales tax on purchase of raw materials. The Sales Tax Officer issued Form 1-B and the petitioner furnished the said Form 1-B to dealers selling raw materials to the petitioner’s unit and availed exemption of sales tax on purchase of raw materials till December, 1989. 3. On 22.12.1989, however, Notification No. 44987-CTA-105/89-F was issued by which tax on sale of iron and steel mate¬rials was imposed at the first point with effect from 1.1.1990. The result was that when the petitioner purchased raw materials from subsequent local sellers, the petitioner had to purchase tax paid iron and steel materials for its re-rolling mill and the petitioner could not get the benefit of the exemption from sales tax on purchase of raw materials. The result was that when the petitioner purchased raw materials from subsequent local sellers, the petitioner had to purchase tax paid iron and steel materials for its re-rolling mill and the petitioner could not get the benefit of the exemption from sales tax on purchase of raw materials. The petitioner therefore filed a second writ petition O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992 claiming refund of tax paid on such purchase of raw materials and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by judgment dated 23.6.1997 with a direction that on the petitioner filing application in the prescribed form, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh without taking any objection of limitation will consider the question of the exact amount of refund to which the petitioner is entitled to under the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and communicate their decision within a period of three months from the date of the application in the prescribed form. 4. Thereafter the petitioner filed four applications on 19.9.1997 and 20.9.1997 for refund of a total amount of Rs. 10,61,044.80 for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, but by order dated 18.12.1997 the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-II Circle, Panposh rejected the said applications. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the said order dated 18.12.1997 of the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-II Circle, Panposh and to direct him to immediately quantify and refund to the petitioner the entire amount of tax paid by the petitioner for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of the applications of the petitioner for refund. 5. 5. Mr Bijoy Anand Mohanty, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner, submitted that by the judgment dated 23rd of June, 1997 of this Court in O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992, this Court had held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of tax exemption on the purchase of raw materials for a period of five years from the date of commercial production as per the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and had directed the Sales Tax Officer and the Commissioner to only find out the exact amount of such refund and communicate the decision to petitioner and, therefore, there was no scope for the Sales Tax Officer to have rejected the applica¬tions for refund altogether and the Sales Tax Officer should have only quantified the amount of sales tax to be refunded to the petitioner. According to Mr. Bijoy Anand Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer has sat in appeal over the judgment dated 23rd of June, 1997 of this Court n a manner which almost amounts to Contempt of Court. He submitted that the Court should forthwith direct the Sales Tax Officer to determine the quantum of refund on the basis of materials filed by the peti¬tioner before him and refund the same with interest at 18 per cent per annum. 6. Mr Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Commercial Taxes, on the other hand, relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties and submitted that the claim of the petitioner for refund can only be consid¬ered in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Rules made thereunder and in this case the Sales Tax Officer considered the applications of the petitioner dated 19.9.1997 and 20.9.1997 in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Rules made thereunder and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 18.12.1997. Mr Ashok Mohanty submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.1997 would show that the Sales Tax Officer while rejecting the appli¬cations of the petitioner has given his reasons and there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Mr Ashok Mohanty submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.1997 would show that the Sales Tax Officer while rejecting the appli¬cations of the petitioner has given his reasons and there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Mr Ashok Mohanty further submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce materials to show that the petitioner has paid tax on the iron and steel materials purchased by it and the Sales Tax Officer has taken a view that as the petitioner has not paid any amount of tax on purchase of iron and steel materials the peti¬tioner was not entitled to refund of such tax. 7. In view of the said submissions made by Mr Ashok Mohan¬ty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Commercial Taxes, that the petitioner had not produced materials to show that any tax was paid by the petitioner on the iron and steel materials, on 23.6.2003 this Court directed production of records in which the refund applications were processed and in which the impugned order was passed and the said records were submitted to this Court during the second week of October, 2003. On perusal of the said records, we find that the petitioner has filed four applica¬tions dated 19.9.1997 and 20.9.1997 in Form XII-A under Rule 42-A for refund of tax on iron and steel materials consumed in produc¬tion of re-rollable steel indicating therein the amounts claimed towards refund for the different periods as follows : Sl. No. Date of Application Period Amount 1. Application dtd. 1.1.1990 to 19.9.1997 31.3.1990 Rs. 1,02,212.00 2. Application 1.4.1990 to dtd. 19.9.1997 31.3.1991 Rs. 5,08,460.70 3. Application 1.4.1991 to dtd. 20.9.1997 31.3.1992 Rs. 3,94,372.10 4. Application 1.4.1992 to dtd. 19.9.1997 31.3.1993 Rs. 56,000.00 Total : Rs. 10,61,044.80 The records further reveal that the petitioner has filed before the Sales Tax Officer statements of raw materials pur¬chased against Form 1-B for the aforesaid periods stating therein the names of the sellers from whom the iron and steel materials had been purchased, the numbers and dates of the bills under which the materials had been purchased, the description of the materials, the quantities of the materials, the rates at which the materials had been purchased and the amounts paid for the materials. Along with the said statement, the petitioner has also filed the copies of the purchase bills before the Sales Tax Offi¬cer and in the purchase bills it has been mentioned that the materials purchased are tax paid goods. The records further show that the Sales Tax Officer has recorded the statement of Sri Naresh Agarwal, Director of the petitioner company, made on 15.12.1997 in which he has stated that the total amount of tax paid on raw materials purchased against Form 1-B for the periods 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 came to Rs. 10,61,044.80. But the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-II Circle, Panposh has by a common order dated 18.12.1997 rejected the said applications giving reasons. 8. The first reason given in the aforesaid impugned order of the Sales Tax Officer is that under entry 26-D (i) of the Tax Free Schedule inserted by the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 the petitioner is entitled to exemption of tax on purchases of raw materials subject to the restrictions and conditions mentioned therein in pursuance of Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 but is not entitled to refund of any amount of sales tax. But as rightly contended by Mr Bijoy Anand Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not open to the Sales Tax Officer to reject the refund applications on this ground in view of the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 23rd of June, 1997 in O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992. The conten¬tion of the petitioner before the Court in the said writ petition O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992 was that while the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 granted exemption from sales tax on purchase of raw materials for the new industrial unit of the petitioner for a period of five years with effect from the date of commercial production upto 2.10.1992, the Notification No. 44987 dated 22.12.1989 levying first point tax on sale of iron and steel materials has forced the petitioner to pay tax on such raw mate¬rials at the first point of sale. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-II Circle, Panposh in their counter-affidavit admitted that the petitioner is entitled to such exemption on purchase of raw materials for a period of five years from the date of commencement of its production but stated that the petitioner has not made any refund application under the prescribed Form XII to the Sales Tax Officer and with¬out following the prescribed procedure has approached this Court in this writ petition raising disputed questions of facts. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 23.6.1997 in O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992 showing the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and the stand taken by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh is extracted hereunder: “.....Petitioner’s allegation is that in the wake of is¬suance of notification No. 44987 dated 22.12.1989 (Annexure-5) by the Finance Department notifying levy of first point tax on purchase of raw materials (which included Iron and Steel), it was forced to pay tax on purchase of raw materials at the first point of sale even though the earlier Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 was in force under which it was entitled to exemption. In short, its allegation is that it had to pay sales tax to the sellers of such raw materials in the local market and it had paid about a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs and odd towards the purchase tax. In view of the exemption available to it pursuant to the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987, it is entitled to refund of the said amount. 3. Opposite parties 5 and 6 have filed their counter affidavit. They have admitted in their counter affidavit that the petitioner is entitled to tax exemption on purchase of raw mate¬rials for a period of five years from the date of its commercial production as per the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987. 3. Opposite parties 5 and 6 have filed their counter affidavit. They have admitted in their counter affidavit that the petitioner is entitled to tax exemption on purchase of raw mate¬rials for a period of five years from the date of its commercial production as per the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987. Their case, however, is that the petitioner has not made any refund application under the prescribed Form XII to the Sales Tax Officer and without following the prescribed proce¬dure, it has approached this Court with this petition raising disputed questions of fact.” Thus, the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Offi¬cer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh did not contend before the High Court that the petitioner was entitled only to exemption and was not entitled to refund but instead contended that the petitioner has not made any refund application in the prescribed Form XII to the Sales Tax Officer and has approached the Court straight away without following the prescribed procedure. After considering the aforesaid stand taken by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Officer, the Court in its judgment dated 23.6.1997 held and directed as follows : “5. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for parties. It has not been disputed before us that the petition¬er is entitled to avail the benefit of tax exemption on purchase of raw materials for a period of five years from the date of commercial production as per the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987. The only serious ground taken by the opposite parties 5 and 6 is that the petitioner has not applied to the prescribed authority in the prescribed from. It is also not disputed before us that the petitioner had filed representations including the one at Annexure-9 claiming refund of sales tax and no decision on it has been taken. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused the refund of tax to which he is entitled to merely because he did not apply for refund in the prescribed form. 6. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused the refund of tax to which he is entitled to merely because he did not apply for refund in the prescribed form. 6. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position, since the petitioner has already lodged representation for refund and no decision has been taken on it, we dispose of the writ applicatn by directing that on the petitioner filing application in the prescribed form, opp.parties 5 and 6 without taking any objection of limitation will consider the question of the exact amount of refund to which the petitioner is entitled to under the Industri¬al Policy Resolution of 1986 and the Finance Department Notifica¬tion No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and communicate their decision within a period of three months of receipt of the application in the prescribed form.” It will be clear from the aforesaid directions in the judg¬ment and order dated 23rd of June, 1997 that the Court was of the view that the petitioner cannot be refused the refund of tax which he was entitled merely because he did not apply in the prescribed form and disposed of the writ petition with the direction that on the petitioner filing the prescribed applica¬tion form the Commissioner and the Sales Tax Officer will consid¬er the question of exact amount of refund to which the petitioner is entitled under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There is, therefore, no scope for the Sales Tax Officer now to take a view that the petitioner was only entitled to exemption from sales tax under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 under entry 26-D (i) of the Tax Free Schedule and was not entitled to refund of tax paid by the petitioner on purchase of raw materials. 9. 9. In State of Bihar and others v. M/s. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. and others, AIR 1999 SC 303 , one of the questions which arose for decision is whether the State Government while exercis¬ing the power of issuing a notification under the Bihar Finance Act could deny benefits declared by the State Government under its Industrial Incentive Policy and the Supreme Court held : “Coming to the second question, namely the issuance of notification by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, it is true that issuance of such notifications entitled the industrial units to avail of the incentives and benefits declared by the State Government in its own industrial incentive policy. But in exercise of such power it would not be permissible for the State Government to deny any benefit which is otherwise available to an industrial unit under the Incentive Policy itself. The Industrial Incentive Policy is issued by the State Government after such Policy is approved by the Cabinet itself. The issuance of the notification under Sec¬tion 7 of the Bihar Finance Act is by the State Government in the Finance Department which notification is issued to carry out the objectives and the policy decisions taken in the Industrial Policy itself. In this view of the matter, any notification issued by the Government Order in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, if is found to be repugnant to the Industrial Policy declared in a Government Resolution, then the said notification must be held to be bad to that extent....” It is thus clear that from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court that the incentives given by the Industrial Policy Resolution, which are policy resolutions of the State Cabinet, cannot be denied by even notifications issued under the Sales Tax Act. Hence, the notification dated 22.12.1989 levying sales tax on iron and steel materials on first point cannot deny the bene¬fit of exemption from sales tax on purchase of raw materials granted to new industrial units under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and if the petitioner has been forced to pay sales tax on purchase of raw materials during the period from 1.1.1990 to 2.10.1992 although it was exempted from payment of such tax, it was entitled to refund of such tax from the Sales Tax Department. 10. The second reason given in the impugned order by the Sales Tax Officer for rejecting the applications for refund is that the petitioner has not paid any amount of Orissa Sales Tax on purchase of any goods which are declared under Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the petitioner has paid first point tax on the iron and steel materials purchased from unregis¬tered dealers who are the subsequent dealers. The Sales Officer has further held that these subsequent sellers have not collected any sales tax from the petitioner as is evident from the purchase bills furnished by the petitioner and the petitioner has himself calculated 4 per cent tax on such purchases of iron and steel and has claimed refund. This again is a question which could not have been re-opened by the Sales Tax Officer after the judgment dated 23.6.1997 of the Court in O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992. As is clear from the portion of the said judgment quoted above, the case of the petitioner before the Court in O.J.C. No. 8052 of 1992 was that the petitioner had to pay sales tax to sellers of raw mate¬rials in the local market in view of the levy of first point sales tax on iron and steel materials by notification No.44987 dated 22.12.1989 and as a result, the petitioner could not get the exemption available to it under the Industrial Policy Resolu¬tion, 1986 and the Finance Department Notification No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and was thus entitled to refund of such tax paid and the Court by the said judgment dated 23.6.1997 has directed the Commissioner and the Sales Tax Officer to quantify the exact amount of refund payable to the petitioner. It is clear from the copies of the bills filed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Officer that the petitioner has purchased tax paid goods from subsequent sellers and, therefore, has paid through the price of such tax paid goods the tax that is payable on such goods. The goods are declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and were liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, should have allowed refund of such tax at the rate of 4 per cent on the price of the goods paid by the petitioner to the sellers and could not have denied the refund to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the tax directly to the Sales Tax Department. 11. The last reason given by the Sales Tax Officer in rejecting the applications for refund of the petitioner is that the petitioner has applied for refund in Form XII-A under Rule 42-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 which are applicable to refund of tax paid on declared goods sold in course of inter-State trade and commerce under Section 14-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act but the petitioner has not sold the iron and steel mate¬rials purchased by it in course of inter-State trade and commerce and has instead consumed the same in production of re-rollable steel. An application in Form XII-A under Rule 42-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 for refund is to be made for refund of tax paid by a dealer selling declared goods in course of inter-State trade who is entitled to refund under Section 14-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner is not that it has sold declared goods in course of inter-State trade and com¬merce and is, therefore, entitled to refund of tax paid on its purchases of such declared goods under Section 14-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. 12. Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 provide for refund of tax, penalty and interest paid by a dealer and are quoted hereunder : Sec. 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 “14. 12. Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 provide for refund of tax, penalty and interest paid by a dealer and are quoted hereunder : Sec. 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 “14. Refunds- The Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, refund to a dealer applying in this behalf any amount of tax, penalty or interest paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under this Act, either by cash payment or by deduction of such excess from the amount of tax, penalty or interest due in respect of any other period : Provided that no claim to refund of any tax, penalty or interest paid under this Act, shall be allowed unless it is made within twenty four months from the date on which the order of assessment or order imposing penalty, as the case may be, was passed or from the date of the final order passed on appeal, revision or reference in respect of the order earlier mentioned, whichever period is later : Provided further that no claim to refund of any tax, penalty or interest paid under this Act shall be allowed in cases where there is an order for reassessment, until the re-assessment is finalized.” Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 “39. Application for refund- (1) An application from a dealer for a refund of any amount of tax, penalty or interest, if any, paid by him in excess of the amount and interest due or security paid shall be made to the Commissioner in Form XII and shall clearly specify the grounds upon which the refund is claimed. (2) If the refund application is found to be incorrect, incom¬plete or otherwise not in order, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer or the Sales Tax Officer, as the case may be, after making such enquiry as he considers necessary and after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit.” It will be clear from a reading of Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 quoted above that the Commissioner shall refund to the dealer any amount of tax paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under the Act. If the dealer was exempted from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials under the Indus¬trial Policy Resolution, 1986 and under entry 26-D (i) of the Tax Free Schedule inserted by the said Finance Department Notifica¬tion No. 5389 dated 13.2.1987 and if some tax had been collected from the dealer by another dealer on such purchase of raw materi¬als at the time of sale of tax paid goods, the dealer ultimately paying such tax by paying the price of tax paid goods has to be refunded the tax under Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. 13. Hence, the applications of the petitioner should not have been made in Form XII-A under Rule 42-A. The petitioner will now have to make fresh applications for refund in Form XII under Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 for refund of tax under Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. Since the petitioner himself had not submitted the applications in the correct form and under the correct rule, the petitioner will not be entitled to interest from the date of the applications as claimed by him in this writ petition. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned order dated 18.12.1997 of the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and direct that the petitioner will submit fresh applications for the periods in question in Form XII under Rule 39 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh will compute the amount of tax paid by the petitioner on the tax paid goods purchased by it as raw materials for its industry on the basis of the copies of the purchase bills produced before him by the petitioner and determine such amount to be refunded and refund the same to the petitioner within 90 (ninety) days from the date of such application failing which the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate mentioned in Section 14-C of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 with effect from the date of expiry of the said period of ninety days. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition allowed.