JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian J. - The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge passed in W.P. No. 21201 of 1992 dated January 10, 2000 non-suiting the petitioner for the relief of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Shencottah, Tirunelveli District in Rc. No. 865896/91-92/92-93 dated November 12, 1992, quash the same as illegal and direct the first and second respondents to permit the petitioner to pay sales tax under the interest-free sales tax deferral scheme for nine years from 1990-91 onwards. It is seen from the order dated November 12, 1992 impugned in the writ petition that the appellant was granted waiver of sales tax for the period from 1990-91 to 1994-95 for a sum of Rs. 14.36 lakhs. But the appellant has collected sales tax for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 contrary to the scheme of waiver. On that basis the impugned order was issued to the appellant directing them to repay the amount collected by way of sales tax both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts. The correctness of the said order was canvassed before this court by filing the writ petition on the ground that the district industries centre has informed that the petitioner was entitled to collect tax in spite of the fact that they have obtained an order for waiver of sales tax under G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 and an eligibility certificate was issued by the district industries centre which was followed by an agreement entered into by the appellant with the territorial Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. That contention has been rejected by the learned single judge by saying that the order of the district industries centre dated November 26, 1992 was obviously wrong and against the spirit of Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 and on that ground, the learned judge dismissed the writ petition. While making submission against the order of the learned single judge before this court, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that neither in the G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 and on that ground, the learned judge dismissed the writ petition. While making submission against the order of the learned single judge before this court, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that neither in the G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 nor in the eligibility certificate issued by the district industries centre nor in the agreement entered into between the appellant and the territorial Assistant Commissioner, there is a specific covenant forbearing the appellant from collecting tax. The collection has been made on the assumption that the petitioner is entitled to collect tax and need not pay the same to the Government. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. We are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. None of the aforesaid proceedings or the Government order or the eligibility certificate issued by the District Industries Centre or the agreement entered into by the appellant with the territorial Assistant Commissioner had never authorised the appellant to collect the sales tax and appropriate the same for itself. The appellant obtained an order for waiver of sales tax for the period from 1990-91 to 1994-95. It is needless to say that the collection of tax must be based on law and law only, which is the constitutional mandate. When the collection is not authorised by law including the Government order with which reliance has been made and the other proceedings issued by the District Industries Centre and the agreement entered into, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. However, the dismissal order would not preclude the appellant, if so advised, to approach the Industries Commissioner, the first respondent herein for any relief on the plea of misunderstanding of the Government orders.