P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition claims that it is engaged in carrying on business of arecanut and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act' ). The petitioner was assessed to sales tax on the file of the respondent-Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes in relation to the assessment year 1994-95, Assessment under the CST Act was concluded in the petitioner's case by the assessing authority. However, while so concluding the assessment, the assessing authority had disallowed the exemption in respect of the inter-State sales of arecanut on the ground that the correspondent purchase of the arecanut were not subject to levy of sales tax under the Act. The assessing authority apart from determining the basic tax liability in respect of the inter-State sale of arecanut by invoking the provision of Section 9 (2-A) of the CST Act read with Section 6-A (3) of the Act had also levied penalty. The penalty so levied by the assessing authority was in a sum of rs. 1,46,395/ -. The liability of the assessee to pay penalty had reached finality and the same is not in dispute. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the notice dated 16th January 2003, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,52,704/ - being the interest payable on penalty of Rs. 1,46,395/- levied under Section 9 (2-A) of the CST Act. ( 2 ) SRI Indra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that in the absence of any provision in the CST Act permitting the authorities to collect interest on the delayed payment of penalty, the authorities have no jurisdiction to levy and collect interest on the delayed payment of penalty. Therefore, he submits that the impugned notice-Annexure-B dated 16th January 2003 directing the petitioner to pay interest in a sum of Rs. 2,52,704/- on a penalty of Rs. 1,46,395/- is liable to be quashed as one without jurisdiction. Therefore, he submits that the impugned notice-Annexure-B dated 16th January 2003 directing the petitioner to pay interest in a sum of Rs. 2,52,704/- on a penalty of Rs. 1,46,395/- is liable to be quashed as one without jurisdiction. Sri Indra Kumar in support of his contention that the authorities can collect interest or penalty only if there is a specific provision made in the Act relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of India carbon Ltd. v. State Of Assam 106 STC 460. It is his submission that in the light of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the Central Act No. 10 of 2000 came to be passed by inserting section 9 (2-B) to the CST Act empowering the authorities to collect interest on the delayed payment of Central sales tax amount only and the said provision does not empower the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate while strongly supporting the impugned notice wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay interest as stated above, pointed out that Section 9 (2-B) of the CST Act which came to be incorporated by validation Act No. 10 of 2000 read with Section 13 (2) of the Act empowers the State to collect interest on the delayed payment of penalty. She brought to our notice the validation Act No. 10 of 2000 and also Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN the light of the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for consideration in this petition is as to whether the respondent is entitled to collect interest on the delayed payment of penalty? ( 5 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 9 (2-B) of the CST Act as amended by means of validation act No. 10/2000 and also Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 5 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 9 (2-B) of the CST Act as amended by means of validation act No. 10/2000 and also Section 13 (2) of the Act. Section 9 (2-B) of the CST Act reads as follows: 9 (2-B) If the tax payable by any dealer under this Act is not paid in time, the dealer shall be liable to pay interest for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions relating to due date for payment of tax. , rate of interest for delayed payment of tax and assessment and collection of interest, for delayed payment of lax, of the general sales tax law of each State, shall apply in relation to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax, and assessment and collection of interest for delayed payment of tax under this Act in such States as if the tax and the interest payable under this Act were a tax and an interest under such sales tax law. Section 13 (2) reads as follows: 13 (2) If default is made in making payment in accordance with Sub-section (1), i) the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax or any other amount due under this Act; and ii) the person or persons liable to pay the tax other than tax payable in advance for any year under Sections 12 and 12-B or any other amount due under this Act shall pay a interest equal to two percent of the amount of tax or any other amount due remaining unpaid for each month after the expiry of the time specified under subsection (1 ). Explanation I - For purposes of Clause (ii), the interest payable for a part of a month shall be proportionately determined. Explanation I - For purposes of Clause (ii), the interest payable for a part of a month shall be proportionately determined. Explanation II - For the purposes of this Sub-section non-payment during any period during which recovery of any tax or other amount due under the Act is stayed by an order of any authority or Court in any appeal or other proceedings disputing such tax or amount, shall be deemed to be a "default. From the reading of Section 9 (2-B) of the CST Act, it is clear that it only permits the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of tax under the CST Act. The provisions contained in sub-section (2-B) of Section 9 which provides for application of general sales tax of each state cannot be understood to mean that Section 13 (2) of the Act can be relied upon to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. Sub-section (2-B) of Section 9 of the CST Act being a substantive provision which provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of tax, in the absence of any provision in Sub-section (2-B) of Section 9 for levy of interest on delayed payment of penalty, the provision contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act which empowers the authorities to levy interest both on the delayed payment of tax or "any other amount due under the Act" cannot be applied and understood to mean empowering the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. The Supreme Court in the case of india Carbon (supra) has laid down that it is not permissible to collect interest on delayed payment of central sales tax in the absence of a provision in law authorising such levy. Therefore, by means of validation Act No. 10/2000, Section 9 (2-B) came to be incorporated to cst Act authorising levy of interest on delayed payment of tax. The reading of the said Section, extracted above, as noticed by me earlier, it only empowers the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of tax and it does not confer any power on the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. The reading of the said Section, extracted above, as noticed by me earlier, it only empowers the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of tax and it does not confer any power on the authorities to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. In the absence of a specific provision in the CST Act empowering the authorities of the State to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty, in my view, as rightly pointed out by Sri Indra Kumar, it is not permissible for the respondent to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. The Supreme Court in the case of India Carbon (supra) while considering the question whether it was permissible for the State to collect interest on delayed payment of tax after referring to two Constitution bench decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR1994 SC 2393 , 1994 ECR329 (NULL ), JT1994 (3 )SC 671 , 1994 (2 )SCALE1044 , (1994 )4 SCC276 , [1994 ]3 SCR964 , [1994 ]94 STC422 (SC ) and in the case of Khemka and Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR1975 SC 1549 , (1975 )2 SCC22 , [1975 ]3 SCR753 , [1975 ]35 STC571 (SC ) of the Judgment has observed as follows: 13. There is no substantive provision in the Central Act requiring the payment of interest on central Sales tax. There is, therefore, no substantive provision in the Central Act which obliges the assessee to pay interest on delayed payments of Central sales tax. 14. Now, the words "charging or payment of interest" in Section 9 (2) occur in what may be called the latter part thereof. Section 9 (2) authoriss the sales tax authorities of a State to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of the Central Sales Tax payable by a dealer as if it was payable under the State Act; this is the first part of Section 9 (2 ). By the second part thereof, these authorities are empowered to exercise the powers they have under the State Act and the provisions of the State Act, including provisions relating to charging and payment of interest, apply accordingly. Having regard to what has been said in the case of Khemka and Co. By the second part thereof, these authorities are empowered to exercise the powers they have under the State Act and the provisions of the State Act, including provisions relating to charging and payment of interest, apply accordingly. Having regard to what has been said in the case of Khemka and Co. AIR1975 SC 1549 , (1975 )2 SCC22 , [1975 ]3 SCR753 , [1975 ]35 stc571 (SC ), it must be held that the substantive law that the States' sales tax authorities must apply is the Central Act. In such application, for procedural purposes alone, the provisions of the state Act are available. The provision relating to interest in the latter part of Section 9 (2) can be employed by the States' sales tax authorities only if the Central sales tax makes a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on Central sales tax and only to that extent. There being no substantive provision in the Central Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax the States' sales tax authorities cannot, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing payment of Central sales tax, charge interest thereon. ( 6 ) THE principle enunciated by the Supreme Court extracted above fully applies to the present case. As noticed by me earlier, in the absence of specific provision providing for levy of interest on delayed payment of penalty in CST Act, it is not permissible for the respondent to make a demand for payment of interest on delayed payment of penalty. Section 13 (2) relied upon by the learned Additional Government Advocate also is of no assistance to her to support her contention that the respondent is entitled to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty under cst Act. The said provision only empowers the State to collect interest on delayed payment of the amount due under the Act. e. , under the Sales Tax Act. The provision contained in Section 13 (2) of the Act can be employed by the State as well as the tax authorities only if the CST Act provides for a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on central sales tax and only to that extent. e. , under the Sales Tax Act. The provision contained in Section 13 (2) of the Act can be employed by the State as well as the tax authorities only if the CST Act provides for a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on central sales tax and only to that extent. As noticed by me earlier, there being no substantive provision in the CST Act requiring payment of interest on delayed payment of penalty under the CST Act, the State sales tax authorities cannot levy interest on the delayed payment of penalty relying upon Section 13 (2) of the Act. The substantive law that the State sales tax authorities must apply is the Central Act. In such application for procedural purposes alone, the provisions of the State Act are available. The provisions relating to interest in the latter part of Section 9 (2-B) of the CST Act can be employed by the State Sales Tax Authorities only if the CST Act provides for a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest of delayed payment of penalty. Therefore, 1 am unable to accede to the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the combined reading of Section 9 (2-B) and Section 13 (2) of the Act permits the State to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the notice-Annexure-B to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay interest on delayed payment of penalty is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed and it is declared that the respondent is not entitled to collect interest on delayed payment of penalty of Rs. 2,52,704/-, as claimed in notice-Annexure-B. ( 8 ) IN terms stated above, this petition is allowed and disposed of. However, no order is made as to costs. ( 9 ) SMT. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate is given four weeks' time to file his memo of appearance.