JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. — For the year 1974-75, the petitioner was assessed to extra tax in the assessment made under Section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). A penal¬ty was also demanded from the petitioner for the said period under Section 9-B (3) of the said Act. Against the said demands of extra tax and penalty the petitioner filed an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax remanded the case back for re-assessment after setting aside the assessment and the order of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, peti¬tioner filed Second Appeal No.159 of 1980-81 before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa. By order dated 16.9.1981, the Sales Tax Tribu¬nal, Orissa allowed the appeal in part and directed the assessing officer to make reassessment keeping in view the direction given by the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax in the connected first appeal and also keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No.159 of 1980-81. By the said order dated 16.9.81 in Second Appeal No. 159 of 18-1980-81, the Sales Tax Tribunal also directed that the extra tax and penalty if paid be refunded. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the re-assessment was made by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II, Ward-D and by order dated 29.5.1987 the Sales Tax Officer held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs.24,78,572/- in accordance with the provisions of law. A suo motu revision under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was initiated in respect of the said order of re-assessment dated 29.5.1987 by the Asst. Commissioner of the Sales Tax, Puri Range, Puri. By order dated 28.5.1990, the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax held in the suo motu revision that in the case of State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd and others, AIR 1986 SC 178 , the Supreme Court has held that refund of tax is due only to person or persons from whom it was collected and since the petitioner had collected the tax on goods from the different persons, the refund is not due to the petitioner. By the said order dated 28.5.1990, the Assistant Com¬missioner of Sales Tax finally ordered that no amount is refundable to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd. and others (supra). Ag¬grieved by the said order dated 28.5.1990, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa but by order dated 23.11.1998, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, in the Suo Motu Revision and dismissed the revision. Ag¬grieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commis¬sioner of Sales Tax in the Suo Motu Revision and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa in the Revision filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the said orders. 2. Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submit¬ted that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Commis¬sioner of Sales Tax, Orissa failed to appreciate that the deci¬sion of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd. and others (supra) was on Section 14-A of the Act which provided that refund can be claimed only by the person from whom the dealer has actually realised any amount of tax. He further submitted that Section 14-A of the Act now stands deleted from the Act with effect from 12.8.1983 and the section that is now applicable for refund is Section 14 of the Act. Mr. Ray vehement¬ly argued that Section 14 of the Act provides that the Commis¬sioner 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 the 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. According to Mr. Ray, since Section 14 of the Act is worded differently from Section 14-A of the Act, which stood deleted with effect from 12.8.1983 the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd. and others (supra) did not apply to any refunds which are due to a dealer after 12.8.1983. Mr. According to Mr. Ray, since Section 14 of the Act is worded differently from Section 14-A of the Act, which stood deleted with effect from 12.8.1983 the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd. and others (supra) did not apply to any refunds which are due to a dealer after 12.8.1983. Mr. Ray further submitted that in this case, the refund became due to the petitioner only after the reassessment order was passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 29.5.1987 and hence, the amount of Rs.24,78,572/- held to be refundable to the peti¬tioner in accordance with law by the said order of reassessment has to be refunded to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. 3. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel (CT), on the other hand, submitted that the refund in question is due to the petitioner for the period 1974-75 and hence, the law as was applicable for the period 1974-75 will hold good. According to Mr. Mohanty, since Section 14-A of the Act was in force for the year 1974-75, the tax amount now claimed by way of refund having been collected from the customers of the petitioner is not payable to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd. and others (supra). Mr. Mohanty further submitted that in any case the petitioner has collected the tax amount from its customers and this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should not direct refund of the amount to the petitioner so as to make the petitioner unduly rich to the extent of amount of re¬fund. 4. We find full force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned Sr. Standing Counsel (CT) that in exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution it would not be equitable and just for us to direct refund of the amount of Rs.24,78,572/- to the petitioner, Food Corporation of India when the said amount has been collected by the petitioner from the persons to whom the goods have been supplied by the petitioner. This is because to give such a direction will be to make the petitioner unduly rich to the extent of the amount of refund which is not actually due to the petitioner. But at the same time, under Article 265 of the Constitution, no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law. Hence, any amount of tax which is collected by the Sales Tax Department without the au¬thority of law cannot be also retained by the Sales Tax Depart¬ment. The aforesaid amount of Rs.24,78,572/- has been collected from the consumers of various goods and, therefore, should be refunded to the consumers. But the consumers being innumerable and unidentifiable in this case, the refund has to be made to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the State. 5. For the reasons, by order dated 10.5.2004, the Court had received the assistance of Mr. K. N. Jena as counsel for the consumers and Mr. Jena has filed a memorandum along with some documents and a copy of the show cause reply filed by Sri Ajit Kumar Tripathy in Original Criminal Misc. Case No.410 of 2002. It appears from the said memorandum filed by Mr. K. N. Jena, and the documents annexed thereto as well as the copy of the show cause reply filed by Sri Ajit Kumar Tripathy, the then Principal Secre¬tary to the Government, Finance Department, Bhubaneswar in Origi¬nal Criminal Misc. Case No.410 of 2002 that a Consumer Welfare Fund in the State of Orissa has been created with the approval of the State Cabinet. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel (CT), however stated that from the copies of the docu¬ments filed along with the memorandum, it is not clear as to whether the Consumer Welfare Fund has already become operational. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Jena and Mr. Mohanty, we direct that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 24,78,572/- will not be refunded but will be made over to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the State of Orissa by 31.3.2005. All necessary steps will be taken by the State Government to make the Consumer Welfare Fund in the State operational, if such steps have not been already taken. If necessary, amendments may also be made to the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Rules or any other Act. All necessary steps will be taken by the State Government to make the Consumer Welfare Fund in the State operational, if such steps have not been already taken. If necessary, amendments may also be made to the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Rules or any other Act. The impugned orders dated 28.5.1990 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Puri Range, Puri and dated 23.11.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa in Suo Motu Revision and Revision respectively are modified accordingly. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Free copy of this judgment will be furnished to Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Mr. G. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. K.N. Jena. A. K. PARICHHA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.