Judgment : PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J. (1) A short question involved in this appeal as to whether in a fiscal statute, namely, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, where there is no provision for payments of interest on the amount refundable being deposit as Sales Tax by the assessee himself, learned trial Judge was correct to direct the payments of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the respective years of deposit. (2) The impugned judgment under appeal passed by the learned trial Judge reads such: "The writ petitioner claims refund of certain amounts of money paid as Sales Tax for inter-state Sales of tea fertilizers. The fertilizers were sent from West Bengal to Assam. As the goods were received at Assam and sale completed only then and there, Sales Tax is applicable in West Bengal would not be attracted at all. The Tribunal has reached this decision but only very recently. The years of assessment in question are some 13/14 years ago. A supplementary affidavit and an opposition to it have also been filed. The years in question and the amounts of refund to be had by the writ petitioner are mentioned clearly there. So far as the first amount of Rs. 1,13,741.53 is concerned, it has already been paid and accepted. The second amount for the next year being Rs. 2,13,915.35 as mentioned in the supplementary affidavit of the writ petitioner is payable practically to its full extent as the opposition to the supplementary affidavit also states admits. It is stated there that on verification a fresh assessment of a sum of Rs. 2,13,891.50 was found to have been paid by the writ petitioner and therefore that is refundable; it is explained that the initial claim of the writ petitioner of Rs. 2,25,000/-has not been found to be admissible in full. The other two amounts of the other two years as mentioned by the writ petitioner in the Supplementary Affidavit are Rs. 1,90,680/-and Rs. 18,286/-. In regard to these, it is stated in the Opposition to the Supplementary Affidavit that the Commercial Tax Officer has asked for verification of certain challans in regard to those amounts from the bank. The payments relate to 1980. The files of the department were produced. 1,90,680/-and Rs. 18,286/-. In regard to these, it is stated in the Opposition to the Supplementary Affidavit that the Commercial Tax Officer has asked for verification of certain challans in regard to those amounts from the bank. The payments relate to 1980. The files of the department were produced. It is true that in some cases the Commercial Tax Officer has received as late as in 1997, verification as regards amounts paid by the writ petitioner in 1979-80. But in regard to the last two years in question, the last queries made by the Commercial Tax Officer to the bank are dated sometime in August 1997 and no reply has yet been forthcoming. In these circumstances, further queries and verification in regard to those amounts must end and the amounts claimed by the writ petitioner must be taken as correct. Those cannot be left to further checking an indefinite verification only because the frequent challans changes have been lost in the department, though no fault of the writ petitioner. The principal amounts for the three years above are, therefore, payable. Mr. Panja submits that apart from these amounts, interest should also be paid. He relies on Rule 11 of the Central Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958. It is set out hereunder: "The provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (Bengal Act VI of 1941) and the rules made thereunder including the use of forms shall apply mutatis mutandis to all proceedings or other matters incidental to the carrying out of the purposes of the Act for which no provision is made in these rules or in the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957." (3) It is quite true that under the Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1941 there is a provision for payment of interest at the rate of 3% per month by the Commissioner in respect of each English Calendar month. Such interest to be computed from the date of the order of refund passed under section 20 or section 21 of that Act upto the date of payment. Such interest to be computed from the date of the order of refund passed under section 20 or section 21 of that Act upto the date of payment. (4) The said Section 10B provides that-"The Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, pay a simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each English calendar month of delay in making refund to a dealer the amount of tax paid in excess which arises out of an order under section 20 or section 21, passed after the date of coming into force of section 3 of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, from the first day of the month next following the expiry of three months from the date of such order up to the month preceding the month in which the refund is made in the manner referred to in section 12, upon the amount of tax refundable to him according to such order." (5) According to Mr. Panja, a combined reading of the above rule and the above section to the opinion, Act flows that his client has an entitlement to claim interest at the rate of 3% per month. (6) It was submitted on behalf of the department on the authority of the case of Indian Carbon Ltd. (106 S.T.C. 460, S.C.) that as the revenue cannot claim interest from the assessee for unpaid Central Sales Tax because there is no express provision permitting such a claim to be made under the Act itself, the assessee in his turn cannot also claim it from the department. In my opinion, this reverse logic should not be applied. (7) It has to be seen on the other hand, whether the assessee has a right, without being influenced by whether the department has a right against the assessee or not. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 contains no section similar to section 10B whereby the assessee can get interest on refundable tax. (8) If Rule 11 is construed so as to give a right to claim interest, the Rule itself would be adding to the rights of the assessee as given under the Act. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 contains no section similar to section 10B whereby the assessee can get interest on refundable tax. (8) If Rule 11 is construed so as to give a right to claim interest, the Rule itself would be adding to the rights of the assessee as given under the Act. Furthermore, the Rules being made under section 13 of the 1956 Act and therefore being no provision there which would specifically cover the right to make rules for payment of interest even in the absence of those provisions in the Act itself, the construction of Rule 11 in the manner suggested by Mr. Panja would be outside the scope of Section 13 of the Act. Even if Mr. Panja were right in above submission, his client would get very little interest as the refund order itself is only years old. (9) In my opinion, however, the writ petitioner should get interest on the amounts yet unpaid from the dates when those were paid to the Government from when it is had used of the money. (10) Such interest, however, should not be at the rate of 3% per month or 36% per annum but at the simple rate of 6% per annum until three months from the date hereof or payment whichever is earlier and thereafter at the rate of 36% per month if not paid even then. The Respondents, their concerned officers, employees, servants and agents shall, therefore, refund forthwith to the writ petitioner the three several sums of Rs. 2,13,891.50, Rs. 1,90,680/- and Rs. 18,286/-together with interest thereon at the simple rate of 6% per annum from the respective years of tax deposit in regard to those sums mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Supplementary Affidavit, till payment which should be within three months hereof, in default of which interest will run thereafter at the rate of 36% per annum. (11) In case payment is not made within three months, notwithstanding the provision as to the interest, the respondents will be liable to answer a charge for non-compliance of an order of court if and when such charge is (hopefully not) made in future. It is clarified that interest has been allowed from the original date of deposit because the transactions attracted no sales tax at all and application of the Act and the Rules were fully outside jurisdiction. It is clarified that interest has been allowed from the original date of deposit because the transactions attracted no sales tax at all and application of the Act and the Rules were fully outside jurisdiction. (12) The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. (13) There will be, however, no order as to costs. (14) If any application for xerox certified copy of this order is made by any of the parties, the department concerned shall supply the same at the earliest." Challenging said judgment passed in C.O. No 19562 (W) of 1996, this appeal has been preferred by the Commercial Tax Officer, Belgachia Charge and Ors. The admitted factual matrix is to this effect: The writ petitioner-company being a distributor of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation supplied fertilizer to different registered dealers from its godown situated at Namrup within the State of Assam. Sales of such fertilizers as a distributor were deemed to have taken place from State of Assam as inter-state sales under the provision of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In Assam, fertilizer is non-taxable goods, as such, no tax was required to be levied and payment of such made by the, dealer was refundable. During the periods 1384 B.S. corresponding to the English calendar year 1977-78, 1385 B.S. and1386 B.S. vide respective challans annexed in the Paper Book, Sales Tax was deposited. Similarly for the year 1387 B.S., the writ petitioner deposited Sales Tax vide different challans. The Assessing Officer assessed the Sales Tax of the year 1385 B.S. against which an appeal was preferred, whereby such assessment was set aside directing to make fresh assessment. Against which a revision petition was filed, which was finally decided on 4th June, 1992 holding, inter alia, that State of Assam was the appropriate State to levy and collect the tax and accordingly quashed the order of Appellate Authority as the tax was assessed under Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. On that basis appropriate Assessing Authority reassessed and found that there was excess payment of tax for the years 1384 B.S., 1385 B.S. and 1386 B.S. vide different orders passed on 23rd June, 1992, 7th December, 1995 and 20th June, 1994 respectively. The writ petitioner himself deposited Sales Tax for 1387 B.S., which was not finally assessed for non-furnishing of proper challans. The writ petitioner himself deposited Sales Tax for 1387 B.S., which was not finally assessed for non-furnishing of proper challans. It was the case of the writ petitioner that as the sale transaction was effected from State of Assam, wherein fertilizer is a nontaxable goods, writ petitioner was entitled to have refund of the tax deposited with interest. A writ application on that premises was moved seeking refund of the excess tax paid with interest thereon. Learned trial Judge applying the provision of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, considered the point of interest and thereby fixed 6 per cent interest per annum on the respective amount of tax deposited from the respective date of deposit of such with a default clause of liability to pay interest at the rate of 36 per cent per annum. The appellant to avoid any contempt proceeding, after the preferring the appeal, refunded the refundable amount along with interest as directed to be paid by the learned Trial Judge. (15) It is the case of the appellant before us that since the Sale Tax is a fiscal statute and there is no provision for payment of interest under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, learned trail Judge was not correct to grant the prayer of interest on considering the point under Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, where there is a provision of payment of interest, which in this case has no applicability. It is an admitted position that tax was deposited on the basis of Central Sales Tax Act and there is no provision for interest in the said statute. The learned advocate for appellant has submitted that in a fiscal statute when there is no substantive provision of payment of interest for delayed refund of the tax deposited in excess, learned trial Judge was not correct to direct payment of interest. In support of such contention, the following judgments have been referred to, namely, India Carbon Limited vs. State of Assam, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 479 and Sayadeva Trading Company vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in 2007 (6) V.S.T. 633 (Karn.). In support of such contention, the following judgments have been referred to, namely, India Carbon Limited vs. State of Assam, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 479 and Sayadeva Trading Company vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in 2007 (6) V.S.T. 633 (Karn.). On applicability of Rule 11 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, it is the contention of the appellant that said Rule has no applicability to impose the tax by considering the issue in the angle of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the Rules made therein as the Rule 11 aforesaid is limited in its applicability of procedural matters and also relating to the proceedings for carrying out the purpose of the said Act. It is contended accordingly that provision of interest under Section 10B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 has no applicability. The respondent-writ petitioner has opposed this appeal and supported the judgment delivered by learned trial Judge under appeal by contending, inter alia, that interest is payable on application of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and on applying equity principle. On application of equity, on fiscal laws, reliance has been placed to the recent judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune and Ors., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 508 , wherein the Apex Court passed the direction for payments of interest on interest in a matter arose out of Income Tax Act, a fiscal statute. Having regard to the rival contention of the parties the only point to be considered whether in a fiscal statute, namely, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 when there is no provision for payments of interest on the refundable amount, whether the order of learned trial Judge is legally sustainable. (16) It is a settled law on applying the principle of equity, which is applied by the Court of law frequently that when somebody is deprived of to utilize his money due to non-refund of the same within time, a liability in the nature of damages, compensation or interest, as the case may be, should be attached. Reliance is made to Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa and Ors. Vs. N.C. Budharaj (deceased) by LRs. Reliance is made to Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa and Ors. Vs. N.C. Budharaj (deceased) by LRs. and Ors., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 721 , wherein in para 22, the Apex Court observed to this effect: "There can be no controversy over the position that the Constitution Bench of this Court in G.C. Roy case while declaring that the decision in Jena case does not lay down good law upheld, as a consequence the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award only pendente lite interest, as explained and highlighted in the subsequent decisions of this Court. When the claim involved for consideration in G.C. Roy case was only with reference to pendente lite interest it cannot be expected of the Court to travel outside, except for analysing the general principles, to academically adjudicate the other aspects of the matter also decided by the Bench in Jena case and overrule the same on such other points too. Be that as it may, the ratio or the basis of reasons and principles underlying a decision is distinct from the ultimate relief granted or manner of disposal adopted in a given case. While laying down Principal (I) in para 43, it has been in unmistakable terms declared (at SCC p.533) that the basic proposition that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, by whatever name it may be called, viz., interest, compensation or damages, "is as valid for the period the dispute is pending before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the reference". The efficacy and binding nature of this declaration of law cannot be either diminished or whittled down even on any known principle underlying the doctrine of "stare decisis"." (17) The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5258 and in the case B.L. Gupta Construction Private Limited vs. Bharat Co operative Group Housing Society Limited, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 110 . (18) Those were the cases not related with fiscal statute. (18) Those were the cases not related with fiscal statute. So far as the fiscal statute is concerned, law is clear that unless in the statute there is any provision for payments of interest, even by applying the equity principle, the Court cannot grant such payments of interest. The judgments relied upon by the appellant being India Carbon Limited (supra) and Sayadeva Trading Company (supra) speak about that principle. The equity whether could be considered in the instant case when admittedly under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there is no provision of payments of interest on refundable amount of excess tax could be answered relying upon the views expressed in the case India Carbon Limited (supra) and in the case State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Atul Fasteners Ltd., reported in (2007) 7 VST 278 S.C. The appellant has relied the views of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in the case Ambica Chemical Products vs. Commercial Tax officer, Eluru, W.G. Dist. And Anr., reported in 114 S.T.C. 88 (A.P.) and of Delhi High Court in the case Bharat Wood Products Co. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi, reported in 64 S.T.C. 107 (Delhi), which have persuasive value for our decision. (19) Having regard to those judgments, this Court is of the view that equity has no applicability so far as the fiscal statute is concerned and this point is not at all res integra. Strong reliance is placed to the judgment passed in the case Indian Carbon Limited (supra), wherein in para 6 and 7 the Apex Court referring the earlier judgments observed such: "6. Out attention was invited to the Constitution Bench judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CTO where it has been held that provisions relating to the charging and levying of interest in a statute are provisions of substantive law. The relevant paragraph of the judgment may be extracted: (SCC pp. 291-92) "16. It is well known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability effective. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section, and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section, and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters. Provision is also made for charging interest on delayed payments, etc. Ordinarily the charging section which fixes the liability is strictly construed but that rule of strict construction is not extended to the machinery provisions which are construed like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, not doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, India United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. Of Excess Profits Tax and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT) But it must also be realized that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. (See Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji and Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram) Out attention was, however, drawn by Mr. Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT, all that the Court pointed out was that provision for charging interest was, it seems, introduced in order to compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged on the strength of a statutory provision, may be its objective was to compensate the Revenue for delay in payment of tax. But regardless of the reason which impelled the Legislature to provide for charging interest, the Court must give that meaning to it as is conveyed by the language used and the purpose to be achieved. Therefore, any provision made in a statute for charging or levying interest on delayed payment of tax must be construed as a substantive law and not adjectival law. Therefore, any provision made in a statute for charging or levying interest on delayed payment of tax must be construed as a substantive law and not adjectival law. So construed and applying the normal rule of interpretation of statutes, we find, as pointed out by us earlier and by Bhagwati,J. in the Associated Cement Co, case, that if the Revenues contention is accepted it leads to conflicts and creates certain anomalies which could never have been intended by the Legislature. 7. This proposition may be derived from the above interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute that levies and charges the tax makes a substantive provision in this behalf." (20) In the case Atul Fasteners Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court re-echoed the same principle by holding that interest on refundable amount could be passed on the basis of statutory provision or any agreement thereof and no interest could be imposed on applying the principle of equity. It is a settled legal position that fiscal statute to be interpreted strictly and no principle of equity could be injected therein. The findings of the Apex Court in the said case is to this effect: "Interest is admissible in a tax enactment on two grounds namely "agreement" or "statutory provision". Interest cannot be granted on the basis of equity under the tax enactment, particularly under statutory schemes for grant of exemption/deferment. It is well-settled that exemption schemes have to be given strict interpretation." (21) The judgment as relied upon by the writ petitioner-respondent being Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra), wherein the Apex Court granted interest on interest in a matter arose out of fiscal statute, Income Tax Act. It is true that there is no provision for payment of interest on interest in the said statute, namely, Income Tax Act, but as there is a specific provision of payments of interest in the Income Tax Act on the excess amount of tax deposited, the Apex Court granted the same by observing in para 48 to this effect: "There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statutory provisions of law as it then stood and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. Therefore, the court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation." The said judgment accordingly will not help the writ petitioner to support the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge under appeal, due to law declared by Constitution Bench aforesaid, as relied in India Carbon Limited (supra). (22) Having regard to such, we hold that as in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there is no provision for payments of interest on excess tax deposited while refunding the same, applying the principle of equity is not applicable to grant it. We hold that equity has no play so far as the fiscal statute is concerned. (23) So far as the applicability of Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 relying upon the Rule 11 of Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, as has been done by learned trial Judge to pass direction for payments of interest, the relevant statute is required to be looked into. Rule 11 of the said Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958 reads such: "11. Application of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, and the rules made thereunder.-The provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (West Ben. Act XLIX of 1994), and the rules made thereunder including the use of forms shall apply mutatis mutandis to all proceedings or other matters incidental to the carrying out of the purposes of the Act for which no provision is made in these rules or in the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957." The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, where under Section 10B provides a provision for interest, which reads such: "10B. Interest payable by the Commissioner.-The Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, pay a simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each English calendar month of delay in making refund to a dealer the amount of tax paid in excess which arises out of an order under section 20 or section 21, passed after the date of coming into force of section 3 of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, from the first day of the month next following the expiry of three months from the date of such order up to the month preceding the month in which the refund is made in the manner referred to in section 12, upon the amount of tax refundable to him according to such order." (24) On a bare reading of said Rule 11 it appears that the provision of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is applicable only in respect of the procedural matters. When tax was levied under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and there is no substantive statutory provision in the said Act directing payments of interest, the logic advanced by the learned trial Judge could not be appreciated by us. (25) Considering those aspect of the matter, we are of the view that judgment under appeal is not legally sustainable so far as direction for payments of interest is concerned. Same accordingly set aside and quashed. The writ petitioner is directed to refund the interest amount as already received to him during pendency of hearing of the appeal within four weeks from this date. Before parting with the matter, we hold that despite payment made complying with the judgment under appeal, appeal is maintainable. Reliance is placed to the judgment passed in the case Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Thakur, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 122 . Appeal, accordingly, is allowed.