S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE instant application under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated September 23, 2004 passed by the learned West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in R. N. 345 of 2004. ( 2 ) THE backdrop of the present case may be capsulated in few sentences as follows : the petitioner, a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 filed return under the said Act during the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991, declaring gross turnover at Rs. 1,80,519 and also paid sales tax for Rs. 1,01,675 which included the disputed sum of Rs. 50,000. In the challan relating to the said sum of Rs. 50,000 the period was mentioned as for four quarters ending March 31, 1992. The said amount was actually paid for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. By an ex parte assessment order dated December 23, 1992 the respondent No. 1, being Commercial Tax Officer, estimated the gross turnover at Rs. 50,000 for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 and raised an additional demand of tax for Rs. 2,88,337. 56 and also interest of Rs. 1,25,280. While demanding such additional amount of tax, no credit was given to the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid in making assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. Demand notices in forms VII and VII-L were issued by the respondent No. 1 raising the said additional amount of tax and interest. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging such ex parte assessment. The said appeal was dismissed. A revisional application was filed thereafter. Being aggrieved by the order of the Board, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Tribunal under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. By order dated December 6, 2000 the Tribunal set aside the assessment order, appellate order as well as the order of the Board passed for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 and also set aside the demand notices. Direction was also given upon the respondent No. 1 to make fresh assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 by taking into consideration all the deposits made by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 made the assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1992 by an order dated May 15, 1998. Direction was also given upon the respondent No. 1 to make fresh assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 by taking into consideration all the deposits made by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 made the assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1992 by an order dated May 15, 1998. While making such assessment, he gave credit of Rs. 24,000 but did not take into consideration the payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000 during the said period, although, the said payment was not considered as payment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 as was earlier claimed by the petitioner. Credit ought to have been given for such payment of Rs. 50,000 for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1992. In response to the direction passed by the learned Tribunal by order dated December 6, 2000, the respondent No. 1 started fresh proceeding for assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. Petitioner by letter dated October 12, 2001 requested for giving credit of a sum of Rs. 50,000 paid by two challans dated December 31, 1992 and January 6, 1993 for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991, although, in the challan the period was wrongly mentioned as four quarters ending March 31, 1992. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that payment of the aforesaid sum was not given credit in making the assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1992. By assessment order dated October 12, 2001, the respondent No. 1 completed the assessment and raised an additional demand of Rs. 53,744 for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. There also no credit was given for the payment of the said sum of Rs. 50,000. Since an additional payment of Rs. 53,744 was, the respondent No. 1 levied interest of Rs. 1,05,250 calculated from the date of issuance of the original demand notice. If respondent No. 1 would have given credit for the said sum of Rs. 50,000 no interest could be charged. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2. By order dated March 31, 2004, the respondent No. 2 confirmed the assessment order of the respondent No. 1 by holding that in the two challans Rs. 50,000 (Rs. If respondent No. 1 would have given credit for the said sum of Rs. 50,000 no interest could be charged. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2. By order dated March 31, 2004, the respondent No. 2 confirmed the assessment order of the respondent No. 1 by holding that in the two challans Rs. 50,000 (Rs. 30,000+20,000) the period was marked as four quarters ending March 31, 1992 and therefore, the said challans cannot be considered for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. During pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 2 initiated certificate proceeding against the petitioner for realisation of the dues for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. Petitioner requested the respondent No. 3 to stay the certificate proceeding. But the respondent No. 3 realised a sum of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 5,000 against demands for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 by two separate receipts issued on February 17, 2004 and July 12, 2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the learned Tribunal in case No. R. N. 345 of 2004 for a direction upon the Commercial Tax Officer to give credit a sum of Rs. 50,000 and also along with interest from the date of the demand notice from four quarters ending March 31, 1992. By judgment and order dated September 23, 2004 the learned Tribunal directed the Commercial Tax Officer to give credit of the sum of Rs. 50,000 but did not allow interest from the date of the demand notice. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 rightly refused to give credit of a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the assessment for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 as a challan of Rs. 50,000 relates to the period four quarters ending March 31, 1992. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the learned Tribunal the petitioner has filed the present application under article 226 of the Constitution praying for setting aside of the same. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Chakraborty has submitted that since payment of Rs. 50,000 was not considered for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 petitioner is certainly entitled to the credit of a sum of Rs. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Chakraborty has submitted that since payment of Rs. 50,000 was not considered for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991 petitioner is certainly entitled to the credit of a sum of Rs. 50,000 for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1992 along with interest since the petitioner was entitled for refund of the said period which was withheld since May 15, 1998. ( 5 ) IT appears that from the materials on record that point for consideration before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the assessment of Rs. 50,000 against the order of assessment for the period March, 1991 and if he is entitled to get refund of the said sum with interest as claimed. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing of the present application before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chakraborty has virtually conceded that he does not have any further grievance in regard to the finding of the learned Tribunal that petitioner is not entitled to get such adjustment of Rs. 50,000. It seems that petitioner's present grievance is only limited to the extent of denial of interest. ( 7 ) LEARNED Tribunal while passing the impugned order was of the view that the petitioner cannot be compensated with interest from the date of service of the first demand notice. The learned Tribunal held that it being a case of apparent mistake on the face of the record, correction may be made by reviewing the order and adjusting the amount of Rs. 50,000. In this context, the learned Tribunal further directed issuance of a fresh demand notice. But the Tribunal refused to grant any interest on the ground that till March 30, 2004, i. e. , the date of passing of the appellate order, the petitioner was claiming adjustment of the said amount against the assessment dues for the period fourth quarter ending March, 1991. Having regard to the fact that petitioner's claim for adjustment till March 2004 was only against the assessed tax for the period ending March 31, 1991 the Tribunal was not inclined to grant any interest. Having regard to the fact that petitioner's claim for adjustment till March 2004 was only against the assessed tax for the period ending March 31, 1991 the Tribunal was not inclined to grant any interest. ( 8 ) IN fact the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities in course of submission has emphatically asserted that petitioner cannot now be given the interest as sought for, as fate of the deposit of the said amount of Rs. 50,000 was not decided earlier. ( 9 ) THIS stood in the way of the authorities taking a decision in the matter. After having initiated litigation one after another, the petitioner cannot claim interest on the said amount. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, is equipped with the judgment of the learned Tribunal where interest was awarded as it was held that refund of the amount was a statutory obligation on the part of the authorities [reference : Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division [2001] 122 STC 310 (WBTT) : (2000) 36 STA 141]. In fact, the learned counsel has sought to derive further support in this regard from an unreported Since reported in [2006] 144 STC 199 [app. ] judgment of the division Bench of this Court (Reference : Ganpatlal Pawankumar v. Commercial Tax Officer.) ( 11 ) IN such backdrop, it is for this Court to decide as to whether or not mere pendency of a litigation could justify denial of interest when amount of Rs. 50,000 as deposited, was indisputably in excess. ( 12 ) IT may be obligatory to send the refund payment order along with notice in form VII. It is as such not permissible to keep back the refundable money for years together or to withhold the refundable amount. ( 13 ) THE relevant Act does not have any provision for payment of interest to a dealer. But absence of such a provision is required to be read in the context of the fact that it is obligatory on the part of the authority to send the refund payment order along with notice in form VII as indicated earlier. The present case however, has a peculiar background in the sense that aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000 was subject-matter of controversy in a litigation. The present case however, has a peculiar background in the sense that aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000 was subject-matter of controversy in a litigation. Petitioner's claim for adjustment of the said amount till March, 2004 was only against the assessed tax for the period ending March 31, 1991. The Tribunal thus held that the petitioner cannot be compensated with interest from the date of service of first demand notice as claimed. The Tribunal observed that since it is a case of apparent mistake on the face of the record, it should be corrected by reviewing the order and adjusting the amount by the authorised officer. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, we fail to appreciate the grievance as ventilated on behalf of the petitioner and, as such, the present application under article 226 being W. P. T. T. No. 13 of 2004 be dismissed on contest. The impugned order stands affirmed. No order as to costs. The order passed by the learned Tribunal be given effect to within a period of four weeks from this date. Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties after due compliance with the legal formalities.