ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. All the aforesaid three writ petitions are being disposed of by this composite order since all the writ petitions have stemmed out of same facts and also identical legal question is also involved therein. 2. I have heard Shri V.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate-General, Mizoram for the respondents. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a Government of India Enterprise, having its head office at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya. The petitioner's company is engaged in power generation projects. Accordingly, the Government of Mizoram also engaged petitioner No. 1 to execute a hydro electric project in Kolasib District in the State of Mizoram. The name of the project has been given as Tuirial Hydro Electric Project, represented by the project head as petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 engaged one M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., to execute civil/electrical works of the aforesaid power project. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 entered into a written contract with the said private company. As per the terms of contract and memorandum of understanding, petitioner No. 1 (NEEPCO) would supply construction materials like cement, steel, M. S. plates, CGI sheets, HR sheets, etc., and the price of these materials would be deducted from the contractor's bill. As per the aforesaid agreement construction materials were supplied to M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., without charging any sales tax. However, while importing the materials from outside the State of Mizoram M/s. NEEPCO had paid Central sales tax, but, the respondents have considered the supply of construction materials by M/s. NEEPCO to its contractor as a sale and the Superintendent of Taxes, Kolasib Circle has imposed sales tax and has also imposed penalty and interest for delay in deposit of sales tax. 4. W.P. (C) No. 91 of 2008 relates to assessment of sales, tax for the period July 1, 2002 to March 31, 2004, whereby sales tax of Rs. 62,31,168 and penalty of Rs. 11,070 have been assessed. These amounts have already been paid under protest. 5. W.P. (C) No. 92 of 2008 relates to assessment of sales tax, penalty and interest for the quarter ending of June, September and December, 2005. As per the rectification order dated December 2, 2005, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, petitioner No. 1 is yet to deposit a sum of Rs. 61,001. 6. 5. W.P. (C) No. 92 of 2008 relates to assessment of sales tax, penalty and interest for the quarter ending of June, September and December, 2005. As per the rectification order dated December 2, 2005, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, petitioner No. 1 is yet to deposit a sum of Rs. 61,001. 6. W.P. (C) No. 93 of 2008 relates to interest on the sales tax amount for the period July 1, 2002 to March 31, 2004, and the interest has been assessed at Rs. 14,74,389. 7. The assessment orders were challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, who upheld the assessment orders. Accordingly revision applications were filed before the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Mizoram. The Commissioner has no doubt upheld the assessment orders but has set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee on the ground that penalty was imposed without giving prior notice or hearing of the assessee. 8. The main contention of Mr. Jindal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is that petitioner No. 1 cannot be termed as a "dealer" within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the Mizoram Sales Tax Act, 1989 nor the transfer of building materials to its contractor can be construed as "sale" under Section 2(19). According to the learned senior counsel to declare a person or a corporation as a "dealer" the authority must be satisfied that such person or corporation carries on business of sale of goods and such sales should be outright sale, including the transfer of ownership. According to the learned Counsel the materials supplied to M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., were not for further sale or for use by the contractor in any other project and, as such, there was no absolute transfer of ownership of the materials. According to the learned senior counsel the materials were supplied to the contractor only to maintain the quality of the construction and the materials had to be used by the contractor only in the specified project, and, as such, such transfer of goods for specific purpose cannot be construed as sale. Besides this, the learned Counsel submitted that the goods always remained under the ownership of petitioner No. 1 and there were specific clauses in the contract agreement for return of surplus materials to the employer. 9. Besides this, the learned Counsel submitted that the goods always remained under the ownership of petitioner No. 1 and there were specific clauses in the contract agreement for return of surplus materials to the employer. 9. For ready reference a few relevant clauses of the contract agreement relating to supply of materials by M/s. NEEPCO to the contractor and return of surplus materials are extracted below: 33. Materials and equipment to be supplied by the corporation: (i) Materials.--The following construction materials will be supplied by NEEPCO to the contractor at site for this work as per the issue price indicated below. The details of issue of such materials and other conditions thereof are indicated at Clause 48 of Volume I, Part III. (a) Cement 235.00 INR/bag (b) Mild/Tor Steel of all sizes 18330.00 INR/MT (c) Structural Steel of all sizes 20607.00 INR/MT (d) MS plate of all thickness 25360.00 INR/MT (e) CGI sheet 30684.00 INR/MT (f) HR sheet 23654.00 INR/MT (g) MS angles of all sizes 18202.00 INR/MT (h) Bitumen 12558.00 INR/MT (i) Explosive (a) Gelatin 48.00 INR/Kg (b) Electronic detonator (ED) 16.34 INR/Nos (ii). . . 48. Materials (i) The contractor at his own expenses shall arrange and supply all materials if not otherwise specifically mentioned, at Appendix VI bought out items and consumable items required for the contract. As per the technical specifications, the contractor shall furnish from time to time test certificates, and samples and materials at his cost to the engineer-in-charge for his approval before use in the work. The contractor is encouraged, to the extent practicable and reasonable to use materials, contractor's equipment, plant and supplies from sources within India. (ii) .... (iii) The Engineer-in-charge or his representative shall be entitled at any time to inspect and examine any materials intended to be used in or on the works, either on the site or at factory or workshop or other place(s) where such materials are assembled, fabricated, manufactured or at any place where these are lying or from where these are being obtained. For this purpose, the contractor shall afford such facilities as may be required for such inspection or examination. The contractor shall agree with the engineer-in-charge on the time and place for the inspection or testing of any materials or plant as provided in the contract. For this purpose, the contractor shall afford such facilities as may be required for such inspection or examination. The contractor shall agree with the engineer-in-charge on the time and place for the inspection or testing of any materials or plant as provided in the contract. The engineer-in-charge shall give the contractor not less than 24 hours notice of his intention to carry out the inspection or to attend the tests. If the engineer-in-charge, or his duly authorised representative, does not attend on the date agreed the contractor may, unless otherwise instructed by the engineer-in-charge, proceed with the tests, which shall be deemed to have been made in the presence of the engineer-in-charge. The contractor shall forthwith forward to the engineer-in-charge duly certified copies of the test readings. If the engineer-in-charge has not attended the tests, he shall accept the said readings as accurate. If, at the time and place agreed in accordance with this sub-clause, the materials or plant are not ready for inspection or testing or if, as a result of the inspection or testing referred to in this clause, the engineer-in-charge determines that the materials or plant are defective or otherwise not in accordance with the contract, he may reject the materials or plant and shall notify the contractor thereof immediately. The notice shall state the engineer-in-charge's objections with reasons. The contractor shall then promptly make good the defect or ensure that the rejected materials or plant comply with the contract. If the engineer-in-charge so requests, the tests of rejected materials or plant shall be made or repeated under the same terms and conditions. All costs incurred by the Corporation by the repetition of the tests shall, after due consultation with the contractor, be determined by the engineer-in-charge and shall be recoverable from the contractor by the Corporation and may be deducted from any monies due or to become due to the contractor and the engineer-in-charge shall notify the contractor accordingly. (iv) Materials rendered surplus on completion of the work or on foreclosure of work or cancellation of the contract shall be returned by the contractor in good condition at Corporation Store at Tuirial Hydro Electric Hydro Power Station Project (TRHEP). Surplus stores and/or materials returned by the contractor will be credited to him at the issue price (appendix VI). (iv) Materials rendered surplus on completion of the work or on foreclosure of work or cancellation of the contract shall be returned by the contractor in good condition at Corporation Store at Tuirial Hydro Electric Hydro Power Station Project (TRHEP). Surplus stores and/or materials returned by the contractor will be credited to him at the issue price (appendix VI). In case used materials rendered surplus after the work are to be accepted, the decision of the engineer-in-charge in this respect shall be final and binding on the contractor. (v) On completion of works/foreclosure/cancellation, the contractor shall return forthwith all materials to the corporation lying on his possession/custody, failing which the engineer-in-charge shall be at liberty to effect recovery at double the issue price against that materials. (vi) to (xii) .... Supplementary agreement 1. ...For the materials listed above of which the corporation has agreed to issue to the contractor for the work under the contract, the contractor shall before 30 (thirty) days of his requirement in accordance with the agreed phased programme of construction of work(s) send a requisition in writing to the engineer-in-charge. The issue of such materials shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) All materials listed above as issued by the Corporation to the contractor for use in the work shall vest in the Corporation, and the contractor shall hold all such items of materials as mere custodian in trust on behalf of the engineer-in-charge. (b) All materials as stated above shall be issued subject to availability at the project store. Such material shall be issued as per requirement of the work as assessed by the engineer-in-charge. The materials issued to the contractor shall be recovered at the above specified rates. The materials will be issued to the contractor for the works within the scope of the contract. If the materials stated above are to be used by the contractor for bona fide purposes such as ancillary, preliminary/auxiliary works to the main works under this contract, the same can be used with due permission from the engineer-in-charge and the recovery rates will be as those applicable as per the rates mentioned above. These materials shall be issued provided the engineer-in-charge is satisfied himself of bona fide use. These materials shall be issued provided the engineer-in-charge is satisfied himself of bona fide use. (c) The materials, which will not be consumed for this work, if not returned in good conditions, then same will be, recovered from the contractor's bill at double the issue rates. (d) and (e) .... (f) The contractor shall maintain account of receipt and use of materials issued by the Corporation each day and submit the same monthly to the engineer-in-charge in the form as may be prescribed for purpose of checking and accounting. 10. On the other hand Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate-General for the State of Mizoram submitted that having realised the fact that any transfer of goods to the contractor for its use in the power project may fall within the ambit of the Mizoram Sales Tax Act, M/s. NEEPCO registered itself as a "dealer" and registration No. 26/KLB/MST was issued to them on November 19, 2002 and now they are making a somersault. The learned Additional Advocate-General also submitted that had M/s. NEEPCO not supplied the building materials the contractor would have purchased the same either from a local dealer or from outside the State and in that eventuality he would have been liable to pay sales tax and, as such, if the petitioners are exempted from paying sales tax, it would be detrimental to the interest of the State. Be that as it may, according to the learned Additional Advocate-General, the issue is no longer res integra since the same has already been decided by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of N.M. Goel & Co. v. Sales Tax Officer reported in [1989] 72 STC 368 : [1989] 1 SCC 335, which has been followed in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 11. To counter the aforesaid authorities Shri Jindal, learned senior counsel, submitted that the terms and conditions of the contract in the aforesaid cases were different and as such the ratio laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid cases ought not to have been applied by the Commissioner of Taxes. According to the learned Counsel, the ratio of law laid down by the apex court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. reported in would be applicable in the present case. 12. According to the learned Counsel, the ratio of law laid down by the apex court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. reported in would be applicable in the present case. 12. Since the controversy relates to the interpretation of the words "dealer" and "sale" it would be just and proper to quote the aforesaid definitions, prescribed in the Mizoram Sales Tax Act, 1989, which are as under: 2. 12. Since the controversy relates to the interpretation of the words "dealer" and "sale" it would be just and proper to quote the aforesaid definitions, prescribed in the Mizoram Sales Tax Act, 1989, which are as under: 2. Definitions.--(10) 'Dealer means any person who carries on (whether regularly or otherwise) the business of selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or indirectly, for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration of other valuable consideration in Mizoram, and includes-- (a) Government, a local authority, a body corporate, a company, a Hindu undivided family, any co-operative society, or a club or other association of persons which sells goods to its members; (b) a factor, broker, commission-agent, or any other merchantile agent, by whatever name called, and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who carries on the business of selling, supplying or distributing goods belonging to any principal whether disclosed or not; (c) an auctioneer who carries on the business of selling or auctioning goods belonging to any principal, whether disclosed or not and whether the offer to the intending purchaser is accepted by him or by the principal or a nominee of the principal; (d) a person engaged in the business of transfer (otherwise than in pursuance of a contract) of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (e) a person engaged in the business of transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (f) a person engaged in the business of delivery of goods on hire purchase of any system or payment by instalments; and (g) a person engaged in the business of transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (19) 'Sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means any person for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and includes-- (a) any transfer otherwise than in pursuance of a contract of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (b) any transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (c) any delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system or payment of instalments; (d) any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified periods); (e) any supply of goods by an unincorporated association or a body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (f) any supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; 13. Under Section 2(10) of the Mizoram Sales Tax Act any person carrying on business of selling, supplying or distributing goods for cash or for deferred payment, etc., is a "dealer". The definition of "dealer" has been widened under Clauses (a) to (g). Referring to Clause (g) Shri Jindal submitted that the words "any other purpose" pre-suppose that the contractor shall be free to utilise the goods in any project of his choice, whereas the contract with M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., stipulated that the materials supplied by petitioner No. 1 can only be utilised in the project of petitioner No. 2 and, as such, petitioner No. 1 cannot be termed as a "dealer". 14. In my considered opinion the aforesaid proposition of law is misplaced inasmuch as Clauses (a) to (g) are additional definition of "dealer" and disjunctive from the main definition that includes any person who carries on business, inter alia, by way of supplying goods. Apparently while executing hydro electric project petitioner No. 1 necessarily has to supply various kinds of goods to the owner of the project. Besides this, supply of goods" directly or indirectly" (emphasis supplied) to the client, is also covered under Section 2(10) . In my considered opinion, these words would also bring the methodology of supplying goods by petitioner No. 1 through its contractor in execution of the project, within the ambit of "dealer". 15. Section 2(19) defines "sale". As per the definition, transfer of property in goods by any method amounts to sale. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners the building materials supplied to the contractor always remained the property of the petitioners and, as such, there was no transfer of title of the goods. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid analogy, which is applicable for the definition of "dealer", would also be applicable mutatis mutandis to decide whether transfer of property in goods to the contractor by an employer would amount to sale. In my considered opinion, at the end of the execution of project, the property in goods will eventually be transferred to the client of the project. In other, words, supply of goods by M/s. NEEPCO, i.e., employer to its contractor for execution of the project is only a temporary transfer of property, but as soon as the project will be completed the property in goods will stand transferred to the owner of the project. In other, words, supply of goods by M/s. NEEPCO, i.e., employer to its contractor for execution of the project is only a temporary transfer of property, but as soon as the project will be completed the property in goods will stand transferred to the owner of the project. In view of this position, I find no difficulty to hold that supply of goods to the contractor by his employer also amounts to "sale" within the mischief of Section 2(19) of the Act. 16. While taking the aforesaid view to declare petitioner No. 1 as "dealer" and its supply of materials to the contractor as "sale" within the purview of the Act, I was fortified by the law enunciated by the apex court in the case of N.M. Goel Hence it is necessary to ascertain whether the facts and circumstances of the case of N.M. Goel [1989] 72 STC 368 : [1989] 1 SCC 335 were identical or stood on different footing from the case in hand, it would be apposite to reproduce the terms of the contract in the aforesaid case and the law laid down by the apex court which are as under (at page 376 of 72 STC): 3. The appellant-company is a building contractor at Rajnandgaon in Madhya Pradesh and is registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The appellant's tender for construction of food grains godown and ancillary buildings at Rajnandgaon was accepted by the Central Public Works Department. It was an item rate tender. In the tender so submitted by the appellant, the prices of the materials to be used for the construction including cost of iron, steel and cement were included. The PWD, however, had agreed to supply from its stores the said iron, steel and cement for the construction work and to deduct the prices of materials so supplied and consumed in the construction from the final bill of the appellant. Clause 10 of the contract is relevant and was as follows: 10. The PWD, however, had agreed to supply from its stores the said iron, steel and cement for the construction work and to deduct the prices of materials so supplied and consumed in the construction from the final bill of the appellant. Clause 10 of the contract is relevant and was as follows: 10. If the specification or schedule of terms provides for the use of any special description of materials to be supplied from engineer-in-charge's stores, or if it is required that the contractor shall use certain stores to be provided by the engineer-in-charge as shown in the schedule of materials hereto annexed, the contractor shall be bound to procure and shall be supplied such material and stores as are from time to time required to be used by him for the purposes of the contract only, and the value of the full quantity of materials and stores to supply at the rates specified in the said schedule of materials may be set off or deducted from any sums then due or thereafter to become due to the contractor under the contract or otherwise, or against or from the security deposit, or the proceeds or sale thereof if the same is held in Government securities, the same or a sufficient portion thereof being in this case sold for the purpose. All materials so supplied to the contractor shall remain the absolute property of Government and shall not be removed on any account from the site of the work, and shall be at all times open to inspection by the engineer-in-charge. Any such materials remaining unused and in perfectly good condition at the time of the completion or determination of the contract shall be returned to the engineer-in-charge at a place directed by him, if by a notice in writing under his hand he shall so require; but the contractor shall not be entitled to return any such materials unless with such consent and shall have no claim for compensation on account of any such materials so supplied to him as aforesaid not being used by him or for any wastage in or damage to any such materials. Provided that the contractor shall in no case be entitled to any compensation or damages on account of any delay in supply or non-supply thereof all or any such materials and stores. Provided that the contractor shall in no case be entitled to any compensation or damages on account of any delay in supply or non-supply thereof all or any such materials and stores. Provided further that the contractor shall be bound to execute the entire work if the materials are supplied by the Government within the scheduled time for completion of the work plus 50 per cent thereof scheduled time plus six months if the time of completion of the work exceeds (12 months) but if a part only of the materials has been supplied within the aforesaid period, then the contractor shall be bound to do so much of the work as may be possible with the materials and stores supplied in the aforesaid period. For the completion of the rest of the work, the contractor shall be entitled to such extension of time as may be determined by the engineer-in-charge whose decision in this regard shall be final. 4. As mentioned hereinbefore, under the said clause, all materials supplied to the contractor remained the absolute property of the Government and could not be removed on any account from the site of the work and were at all times open to inspection by the engineer-in-charge. Any such materials remaining unused and in perfectly good condition at the time of completion or determination of the contract were to be returned to the engineer-in-charge at a place directed by him by a notice in writing in his hand if he so required but the contractor was not entitled to return any such material unless he was required to do so. There was no dispute that for the construction the appellant was supplied iron, steel and cement by the PWD and it had purchased other materials from the market. The prices of iron, steel and cement supplied to the appellant for the work were deducted from its final bill. .... 11. Therefore, from the above decisions it follows that in order to be sale taxable to duty, not only the property in the goods should pass from the contractor to the Government, or the appellant in this case but there should be an independent contract--separate and distinct--apart from mere passing of the property where a party purchases or procures goods from the Government. Mere passing of property from the contractor to the Government would not suffice. There must be sale of goods. Mere passing of property from the contractor to the Government would not suffice. There must be sale of goods. The primary object of the bargain judged in its entirety must be viewed. In the instant case, Clause 10 is significant as we have set out hereinbefore. For the purpose of performance, the contractor was bound to procure materials. But in order to ensure that quality materials are procured, the PWD undertook to supply such materials and stores as from time to time required by the contractor to be used for the purpose of performing the contract only. The value of such quantity of materials and stores so supplied was specified at a rate and got set off or deducted from any sum due or to become due thereafter to the contractor. Mr. Virmani, appearing for the appellant, submitted before us that in the instant case, there was no such independent and separate sale. But we are unable to accept. Though, in a transaction of this type there is no inherent sale a sale inheres from the transaction. Clause 10 read in the proper light indicates that position. 17. In my considered opinion, the terms and conditions of the contract agreement between M/s. NEEPCO and Patel Engineering Ltd., are by and large one and the same which were in the case of N.M. Goel [1989] 72 STC 368 : [1989] 1 SCC 335. The little difference is that in the aforesaid case there was no mandatory condition for return of the surplus materials by the contractor and option was kept open by the company to accept the unused materials. However, in the case before me the conditions are very specific that surplus materials had to be returned to M/s. NEEPCO and if surplus materials are not returned in good condition then the petitioner No. 1 shall be at liberty to recover the value of the materials at double the issue rate. 18. In my considered opinion, in the first case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. [1998] 109 STC 425 (SC) : [1998] 8 SCC 439 the honourable Supreme Court was also dealing with an identical issue. In this case, however, the contractor did not have the opportunity to retain the surplus goods, the benefit that was available to the contractor in the N.M. Goel case [1989] 72 STC 368 : [1989] 1 SCC 335. In this case, however, the contractor did not have the opportunity to retain the surplus goods, the benefit that was available to the contractor in the N.M. Goel case [1989] 72 STC 368 : [1989] 1 SCC 335. However, their Lordships have held that this does not appear to be material difference in the contract agreement. I am also of the view that the crux of both the aforesaid authorities centres around as to whether the transfer of goods/materials by the employer to the contractor would amount to sale and in deciding this issue the condition of return of surplus materials is not a significant factor to take a different view. In other words, I hold that the case in hand is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in N.M. Goel [1989] 72 STC 368 : [1989] 1 SCC 335. 19. The judgment of the honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. is arising out of lending of machineries to the contractor on hire charges. Apparently, such machineries are not completely utilised in the construction or execution of the project. In other words, machineries are not consumable items. Besides this, the employer had collected lending charges of the machineries and the machineries always remained the property of the employer. Hence facts of this case, cited on behalf of the writ petitioners, stand on different footing and cannot be applied in the case before me. Hence, I do not find any fault on the part of the respondents for assessing sales tax and imposing interest and penalty for transfer of construction materials to its contractor. 20. As noted earlier, W.P. (C) No. 93 of 2008 relates to imposing of interest on the sales tax amount for the period from July 1, 2002 to March 31, 2004. According to Mr. Jindal, learned senior counsel, although penalty of Rs. 1,170 was imposed while assessing sales tax, the competent authority did not impose interest on the tax amount. However, subsequently the authority has imposed interest at Rs. 14,70,389 under the instruction of Principal Accountant General. According to the learned Counsel since the assessing authority performs a quasi-judicial function it has to take its own decision without being influenced by any authority. 21. However, subsequently the authority has imposed interest at Rs. 14,70,389 under the instruction of Principal Accountant General. According to the learned Counsel since the assessing authority performs a quasi-judicial function it has to take its own decision without being influenced by any authority. 21. I have perused the order dated June 10, 2005, whereby the Superintendent of Taxes, Kolasib Circle has assessed interest for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. This letter clearly indicates that interest has been levied under the direction of the Principal Accountant General, Shillong. In my considered opinion, there is no legal infirmity to impose interest that might have been left out or omitted inadvertently while assessing the tax, on being pointed out by the audit office. However, it would have been proper on the part of the Superintendent of Taxes, to provide full calculation of the interest amount. The letter dated June 10, 2005, imposing interest, does not give break up of the interest calculation and on this ground the aforesaid letter is hereby set aside. The Superintendent of Taxes, Kolasib Circle is directed to pass a fresh order giving full details of the calculation of the interest. I also make it clear that the Superintendent of Taxes and its higher authorities shall be at liberty to take a decision whether it is a fit case to impose interest at all, since the assessment was done long back, without imposing interest and tax has already been paid. The authorities may also take into consideration the cause for non-filing of return and paying sales tax on time. 22. With the aforesaid directions, all the three writ petitions are hereby disposed of.