JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, J. — All these writ petitions have been filed claiming that the various assessment orders passed in this batch of writ petitions cannot been forced on the ground that the peti¬tioner was granted Sales Tax exemption by the Industries Depart¬ment vide its order dated 26th June, 2003 as a Pipe Line Indus¬try. 2. These writ petitions were pending in this Court for some time and interim orders have been issued in these writ petitions from time to time and in view of those interim orders the petitioner has not paid the Sales Tax since the withdrawal of exemption of Sales tax has been challenged by the petitioner apart from payments made pursuant to interim directions in the present proceedings. 3. On 22nd June 2006 when this batch of writ petitions were taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was served in Court with a memo bearing No.8021(2) dated 9th June 2006 issued by the Director of Industries, Orissa, in which it was stated that the Government of Orissa has reviewed its earlier decision and decided not to allow the Sales Tax incentives under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1996 and specifically under Para 15.4 of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 2001 in respect of the aerated water products of the petitioner-company. In that communication it was also stated to show cause within a period of thirty days, as to why the decision of the State Government in its letter dated 26th June, 2003, of the Industries Department to grant exemption certificate for Sales Tax concession to the writ petitioner, shall not be withdrawn as per Industries Department letter dated 27th May, 2006. It may be noted that at the com¬mencement of hearing, the said letter dated 27th May, 2006 along with the letter dated 9th June, 2006, were handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such unilateral withdrawal of concession offends the doctrine of promissory estoppel which was reiterated by the Apex Court re¬peatedly and recently in its decision in the case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (Private) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2006) 3 S.C.C. 620 . The petitioner-company’s stand is that it is prepared to pay the entire tax which is due without payment of interest/penalty and the petitioner is also prepared to give up its claim of sales tax concession. The petitioner-company’s stand is that it is prepared to pay the entire tax which is due without payment of interest/penalty and the petitioner is also prepared to give up its claim of sales tax concession. Learned counsel for the Industries Department and also for the Revenue was not prepared to accept such offer of the petitioner and on the other hand seriously contended that statutory interest is to be levied on the petitioner and the petitioner has to pay the same. 5. Now the only question for decision is whether the petitioner has to pay interest in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Under the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinaf¬ter referred to as the ‘O.S.T. Act’), an assessee has to pay interest in a situation contemplated under Section 12(4-a) of the said Act. The said Section is set out below”- “12. Assessment of Tax- (4-a) If Commissioner, while making an assessment under Sub-section (2), (3) or (4) is satisfied that the dealer has knowing¬ly produced incorrect accounts, documents or registers or has without sufficient cause furnished incorrect return or informa¬tion affecting or intended to affect the quantum of the tax payable by him or his liability to pay tax for the period for which such assessment is made, he may direct that the dealer shall, in addition to the tax assessed under the said sub-sec¬tion, pay interest at the rate of Ten per cent per annum on the tax payable in respect of the taxable turnover not incorporated in the return for a period of ninety days, or for the period beginning from the date on which the return was due and ending on the date of assessment, whichever is less.” The other provision for payment of interest by the assessee is under Section 13(6) of the said Act and that provision is set out below:- “13. Payment and recovery of tax and penalty :- (6) In case a dealer makes default in payment of any amount for the payment of which a notice has been issued under Sub-section (4), by the date of expiry of the period allowed under that sub-section, he shall pay interest on the said amount at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the said date. Provided that where any appeal or revision under Section 23 or reference under Section 24 has been preferred, the interest as aforesaid shall be payable from the date specified above on the tax or penalty, if any, ultimately found due from the dealer; Provided further that in case the tax or penalty, if any, is enhanced in such appeal, revision or reference, the interest on the excess amount shall be payable from the date by which the dealer is required to pay such excess amount. Provided also that no interest under this sub-section shall be charged in respect of any amount which remained unpaid at any time prior to the 1st day of January 1971.” There another provision for payment of interest under the said Act, that is the provision under Section 14-C. But here interest is to be paid by the Revenue for delayed refund to the assessee and not by the assessee. So this has no application here. 7. The learned counsel for the Revenue admitted that of the two Sections quoted above namely Sections 12(4-a) and 13(6), Section 12(4-a) has no application but Section 13(6) applies. 8. Now it is clear from a perusal of Section 13(6) of the said Act that it is attracted in a case of default. What amounts to default on the part of the assessee has not been de¬fined in the said Act. So the ordinary meaning of the word ‘d¬efault’ would govern the situation. Apart from that the first provision makes it clear that where any assessment proceeding is pending before the appellate or revisional authority, the interest on tax/penalty will be leviable on the amount which is “ultimately found due”. Therefore the claim for interest is subject to the final orders of such appellate/revisional authority. In other words, Revenue’s claim of interest cannot survive independently of the orders passed by either the appellate or the revisional authority. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex. Tej Kumari Devi and Ranchi Club Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and others, reported in (1996) 222 I.T.R. 44 . 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex. Tej Kumari Devi and Ranchi Club Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and others, reported in (1996) 222 I.T.R. 44 . One of the questions which fell for deci¬sion in that case was whether interest could be levied merely through a notice of demand under Section 156 of Income Tax Act when there was no specific demand in the assessment order for charging interest. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the learned Judge has set out Section 156 of the Act. The said Section bears a somewhat close resemblance with Rule 32 of Orissa Sales Tax Rules (herein¬after referred to as the ‘O.S.T. Rules’). Construing that Section, the learned Judges held that charge of interest has to be specific and clear like any order as to tax, penalty or fine. It was also held that the assessee must be made to know that the assessing officer after applying his mind has ordered the charging of interest and under which Sec¬tions of the Act. It was also held that when the assessment order is silent about any interest being leviable, the notice of demand cannot levy interest. It appears that the ratio in that case was not subsequently disturbed by the Supreme Court when an appeal was filed against the same by the Revenue. The subsequent order of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others Versus Ranchi Club, Ltd. is reported in (2001) 247 I.T.R. 209 (S.C.). 10. In the case of M.G. Brothers Versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1985) 154 I.T.R. 695 , the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held at page 712 of the report that charge of interest is not a matter of automatic consequence and that an assessee has a say in the matter before the interest is actually charged. The learned Judges held considering the provi¬sion of Section 215 of Income Tax Act and Rule 40 of the Income Tax Rules and also under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 117-A of Income Tax Rules that before the charge of inter¬est, the I.T.O. should give an opportunity to the assessee to show cause why interest should not be levied. An interest can only be levied after considering the representation of the asses¬see. Following this principle in the instant case it can be said that no notice has been served upon the petitioner for payment of interest. In fact, no such occasion arose in the instant case for the interim order of this Court, which is continuing even till date showing the demand for tax. Similar views have been expressed by the learned Judge of Madras High Court in the case of V. Ramanujam Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1999) 238 I.T.R. 978. In that case it was held that without an opportunity of showing cause, no inter¬est can be levied on an assessee. 11. In the instant case it is not in dispute that despite the continuance of the stay order, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.11.35 crores by way of tax to the Sales Tax authori¬ties, even though the petitioner has disputed the right of Sales Tax authorities to levy the Sales Tax. It also appears from the facts of this case that no tax has been recovered by the asses¬see. 12. It would also be relevant to note here that in course of hearing of this matter, the Sales Tax Department filed a memo dated 22.6.2006 enclosing thereto a letter dated 9.6.2006 ad¬dressed to the petitioner by the Director of Industries, Orissa and the letter dated 27.5.2006 addressed by the Industries De¬partment, Government of Orissa to the Director of Industries, Orissa, Cuttack. On perusal of the aforesaid two letters, it would be clear that the petitioner had been granted an eligibility certificate on sales tax concession on raw materials, machinery spare parts, packing materials and finished products vide letter No.XIV-HI-10/2002(Pt)-11366/1 dated 26.6.2003 and the said certificate granting such benefit for the petitioner’s unit is for a period of six years from 3.5.2000 to 2.5.2006. From the said communica¬tion, it is further clear that the State of Orissa reviewed their earlier decision to grant such benefit to the petitioner and decided not to allow the Aerated water products of the petition¬er-company sales tax incentives vide its communication dated 27.5.2006. From the said communica¬tion, it is further clear that the State of Orissa reviewed their earlier decision to grant such benefit to the petitioner and decided not to allow the Aerated water products of the petition¬er-company sales tax incentives vide its communication dated 27.5.2006. It is further clear from the said communication that the Director of Industries acting upon such direction of the Govern¬ment of Orissa in Industries Department, issued a show cause notice dated 9.6.2006 narrating the aforesaid facts and calling upon the petitioner to show cause within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of that letter i.e. 9.6.2000 failing which it would be deemed that it has no explanation/show cause to offer in the matter and the authority shall proceed for cancellation in accordance with the decision of the State Government. The aforesaid facts clearly go to indicate that the eligi¬bility certificate granted by the Director of Industries on 26.6.2003 continue to remain valid at least for a period of thirty days from the date of issue of the show cause notice i.e. 9.6.2006 and till consideration of any reply to such show cause notice that may be submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the most important aspect of all the aforesaid facts is that as on date, it is not even the case of the State of Orissa that the petitioner does not possess a valid eligibility certificate. This aspect is confirmed by the memo filed in Court to the following effect : “As a consequence of the said letter, the Director of Industries, Orissa, Cuttack has issued a show cause to the peti¬tioner to withdraw the eligibility certificate for S.T. conces¬sion. A copy of the said show cause dated 9.6.2006 is filed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. So far as response to the petitioner’s offer for waiver of interest is concerned since interest is chargeable under the O.S.T. Act and is statutory interest, for belated payment such waiver of interest is not feasible, as there is no such provision under the statute.” Therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the impugned demand has been made by the Sales Tax Authorities despite the eligibility certificate issued by the appropriate authority being kept alive as on date. Therefore, no demand of interest or levy of penalty for non-payment of tax can/nor does arise, as long as such certification remains in force. In the background of these facts and having regard to the ratio in the above mentioned cases, this Court is of the opinion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties cannot charge interest on the petitioner nor can levy any penalty on the petitioner. In fact, no such notice has been or could be issued. 13. The petitioner in view of its offer, is directed to pay the entire amount of sales tax attributable in these four writ petitions in two equal instalments. The first instalment is to be paid by 31st of July 2006 and the second instalment is to be paid by 31st of August, 2006. In passing the said order, this Court has also taken into consideration the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the principle of promissory estoppel in its recent judgment in the case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (Private) Ltd Versus State of Haryana and others, (supra). This Court passes this order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the offer made by the petitioner in Court. This Court makes it clear that this Court is not laying down any general proposition on Sections 12(4-a) and 13(6) of the said Act. 14. All the writ petitions are, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. I. MAHANTY, J. I agree. Petitions disposed of.