JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the assessee apparently against the order of the Tax Board dated 14.1.2010 passed in appeal No. 1773/2007/Jodhpur. 2. The learned Tax Board has rejected the assessee's appeal on the ground that with the amendment of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with effect from 11.5.2002 whereby Section 8(2A) of the said Act was deleted and sub-sec. (4) was substituted by the Central Government, therefore, the assessee could not have availed concessional rate of tax on the sale of DEPB licence by him in the course of inter-state trade or commerce without supporting such sales against the prescribed declaration form "C/D" as prescribed in the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turn-over) Rules, 1956. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assessee Mr. Dinesh Mehta at the outset fairly submitted that in view of amendment in law w.e.f. 11.5.2002 making furnishing of declaration in form "C/D" mandatory, since assessment period in question admittedly falls after such amendment, therefore, he cannot assail the order of the Tax board validly. However, one contention which is sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of an administrative order passed by the Secretary (Revenue) of the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan, a copy of which is placed on record as Annex.7 and which is reproduced hereunder, is that since the inter state tax liability under the said Act for the period between 13.5.2002 to 25.9.2005 was written off by the State Government, therefore, the Central Sales Tax recovered from the petitioner - assessee for such inter state sales made by him but not supported by the declaration form "C/D" deserves to be refunded back to him and notwithstanding no challenge to the order of the Tax Board, the said Tax recovered from the petitioner - assessee deserves to be refunded back to him. 4. The learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Mathur strenuously opposed the said submission and urged that by the administrative order, the amendment in the CST Act w.e.f. 11.5.2002 by Act No. 20 of 2002 could not have been undone. 4. The learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Mathur strenuously opposed the said submission and urged that by the administrative order, the amendment in the CST Act w.e.f. 11.5.2002 by Act No. 20 of 2002 could not have been undone. He submitted that unrecovered tax liability on account of said amendment in law could only be written off by the said administrative order of the State Government and there is no question of refunding back the tax already so recovered from the assessee on the anvil of the said administrative order. The said administrative order Annex.7 is reproduced hereunder: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj foÙk foHkkx ¼dj vuqHkkx½ Øekad i-12¼20½ foÙk@dj@2005-ikVZ-, t;iqj] fnukad 16-4-2008 vkns'k fnukad 13 ebZ] 2002 ls 25 flrEcj] 2005 dh vof/k esa gqbZ] fcuk C-Form lefFkZr inter-sales ij dsUnzh; fcØh dj vf/kfu;e] 1956 ds vUrxZr jkT; nj ls vf/kd dj nkf;Ro viysf[kr fd;k tkrk gSA jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] ,lMh@& ¼jtr dqekj feJ½ 'kklu lfpo] foÙk ¼jktLo½** 5. A bare perusal of the said administrative order reveals the contradiction in terms of said order. What could be written off as unrecoverable by the State Government could only be what stood as tax viz., CST still recoverable from the assessee. There is no question of writing off the tax liability itself as it is. Therefore, the use of words "nkf;Ro" and "viysf[kr" in juxta-position is contradiction in terms. The English translation of these words are "liability" or "obligation" and "write off" or "waiver" respectively. The meaning of words "Bad Debt" as given in Black's Law Dictionary is as under : "a debt which is uncollectible; a permissible deduction for tax purposes in arriving at taxable income. Different tax treatment is afforded business and non-business bad debts. A business debt is defined by the Internal Revenue Code as a debt created or acquired in connection with a trade or business of the taxpayer, or a debt which becomes worthless in the taxpayer's trade or business. Loans between related parties (family members) generally are classified as non-business." 6. The meaning of word "liability" as given in Black's Law Dictionary is as under : "an obligation which may or may not ripen into a debt; any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied; penalty for failure to pay tax when due, State vs. Fischl, 94 Mont. The meaning of word "liability" as given in Black's Law Dictionary is as under : "an obligation which may or may not ripen into a debt; any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied; penalty for failure to pay tax when due, State vs. Fischl, 94 Mont. 92, 20 P.2d 1057, 1059; present, current, future, fixed or contingent debts, Erickson vs. Grande Ronde Lumber Cop., 162 Or. 56, 92 P. 2d 170, 174; punishment, Holliman vs. Cole, 168 Okl. 473, 34, P.2d 597, 599; responsibility for torts, Italiani v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation, 45 Cal.App.2D, 464, 114 P.2d, 922, 924; that which one is under obligation to pay, or for which one is liable." 7. The word "waiver" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary is as under: "The intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right, or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right, or when one dispenses with the performance of something he is entitled to exact or when one in possession of any right, whether conferred by law or by contract, with full knowledge of the material facts, does not forbears to do something the doing of which or the failure of forbearance to do which is inconsistent with the right, or his intention to rely upon it. The renunciation, repudiation, abandonment, or surrender of some claim, right, privilege, or of the opportunity to take advantage of some defect, irregularity or wrong. An express or implied relinquishment of a legal right. A doctrine resiting upon an equitable principle, which courts of law will recognize. Atlas Life Ins. Co. vs. Schrimsher, 179, Okl. 643, P.2d 944, 948. Waiver is essentially unilateral, resulting as legal consequence from some act or conduct of party against whom it operates, and no act of party in whose favour it is made is necessary to complete it." 8. It appears that the concerned Secretary while issuing this administrative order with the approval of Governor has remained oblivious of this contradiction in his administrative order. 9. It appears that the concerned Secretary while issuing this administrative order with the approval of Governor has remained oblivious of this contradiction in his administrative order. 9. While it is the choice of the State Government to write off the tax outstanding which remains unrecovered from the assessee for any reason, even though the relevant law makes that liability as enforceable liability and recoverable tax, having the sanction of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India read with relevant provision of such enactment, what cannot be written off is 'liability' to pay the tax itself. It is well known accounting policy to write of bad debts i.e. the debt which cannot be recovered for any reason, similarly unrecovered outstanding tax from assessee can also be written off by the State, but liability to pay tax itself cannot be written off, unless statute is amended or and power to exempt such tax liability is exercised by the State. A Secretary of Finance Department to the State by administrative order even with the approval of the Governor cannot exercise the power to exempt the tax liability. It is the legislative function to be exercised by the State Government as an subordinate legislative function. 10. The liability to pay tax itself can only be exempted by invoking relevant provisions for grant of exemption under the relevant statute, like, Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. That power can only be exercised by the State Government itself according to the Rules of Business and not by any Secretary concerned thereof. Obviously, Section 15 of the Act for exempting the tax liability has not been involved while passing the administrative order dated 16.4.2008. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that this liability itself stood written off and therefore, whatever was paid by him as due tax liability which was upheld right upto the Tax board deserves to be refunded back to him on the anvil of such administrative order issued by the Secretary of the State Government with the approval of the Governor is thoroughly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected. 11. The same is accordingly rejected. 11. There was no question of writing off the tax liability which was fixed and enforced against the petitioner - assessee by amendment of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 w.e.f. 11.5.2002 which clearly stipulates that no such inter-state sales unsupported by the declaration in form "C/D" enjoys concessional rate of tax. The assessee is not even disputing his tax liability on the inter-state sales of DEPB licence in the present case. The position relating to amendment in Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act by reproduction of comparative provisions before amendment and after amendment is given below in the form of a chart. The effect of these amendments on furnishing of declaration form C/D was explained by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in his Circular dated 13.2.2005, which is also reproduced hereinafter : PRIOR TO AMENDMENT AFTER AMENDMENT 8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce (1) every dealer, who in the course of interest-State trade or commerce- (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four percent of his turnover. 8. Rates of Tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-Sate trade or commerce sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be three percent of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the Sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower : Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub-section. (substituted by Act No. 16 of 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007) 8(2A). (substituted by Act No. 16 of 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007) 8(2A). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of Section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of Section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, extent from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four percent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be) shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under this law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances. Sub-Section (2A) omitted by Act 20 of 2002, Sec. 152 w.e.f. 11.5.2002. (4). The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner :- (a) a declaration duly filed and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; or (b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly filed and signed by a duly authorized officer of the Government: Provided that the declaration referred to in clause (a) is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit. (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority: Provided that the declaration is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit. (substituted by Act No. 16 of 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007). 12. As fairly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner - assessee himself, he could not validly assail the imposition of such tax liability in view of amendment in law which has the effect of assessee not being entitled to avail concessional rate of tax without declaration in form "C/D" and rightly so, but having paid that tax liability, seeking refund thereof on the strength of the aforesaid administrative order passed by the Secretary to the State government is indeed an ingenious argument of the learned counsel for the assessee, which has no legal substance in it. The same is, therefore, liable to be rejected. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - assessee that since by aforesaid administrative order dated 16.4.2008, the tax liability of assessee has been waived/written off and therefore, the assessee is entitled to refund of excess of tax already assessed and realized from him, is also negatived by the Circular dated 13.12.2005 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax himself produced as Annex.3 by the petitioner himself and which is reproduced below clearly stipulates that no refund would be granted in these circumstances vide para (4) thereof. "S.No. 2117 : CCT Circular No. F.11(13)/Tax/CCT/2005/2000 dated 13.12.2005. The amendment in S.8 CST Act, 1956 made effective from 11.5.2002, has been interpreted in diversified manners so far as furnishing of the Form "C" or certificate in Form "D" is concerned for claiming benefit of concessional rate of tax in the inter-State transaction. One view is that unless the condition of dispensing with the requirement of these Forms is withdrawn specifically, the dealers would not be required to furnish such forms to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax under such notfns. One view is that unless the condition of dispensing with the requirement of these Forms is withdrawn specifically, the dealers would not be required to furnish such forms to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax under such notfns. The other view is that the impact of the aforesaid amendment is withdrawal of the power of the State Govt. to dispense with the requirement of Form "C" or "D" while providing for concessional rate of tax under S. 8 CST ct. In absence of such forms, the dealers would not be entitled to claim benefit of concessional rate of tax under any of notfns. issued under S.8(5), CST Act, 1956. This has created a situation where insistence for furnishing such Forms is causing hardship to the dealers who had the bona fide belief that requirement of Form "C"/"D" was not necessary as per the existing notification where the requirement of furnishing these declaration forms have been dispensed with. Having considered various aspects of the issue and being satisfied that levy of higher amount of tax by the AA in absence of 'C'/'D' Forms will not only adversely affect the trade and industry but will also cause financial hardship to them even when they have acted under the bona fide belief that there is no requirement of furnishing these forms to support their claim for concessional rate of tax under the relevant notfns. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to free the trade from unnecessary financial burden, the following clarifications are hereby issued:- 1. From 11.5.2002 to 26.9.2005, there will be no requirement of furnishing Form 'C'/'D' to support sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce under the notfns. which specifically dispensed with requirement of furnishing such forms in support of such sales : (2) With effect from 27.9.2005, all the inter-State sales transaction should be supported by declaration Form 'C'/'D' to claim benefit of concessional rate of tax under any notfn issued by the State govt. under S. 8, CST Act; (3) Any order passed in contravention with this circular shall be rectified in accordance with law; and (4) No refund shall be given to any dealer under S.56, RST Act, 1994 while initiating action under this circular: This bears approval of the finance department vide letter No. F.12(20)FD/Tax/05-pt. dated 6.12.2005." 14. under S. 8, CST Act; (3) Any order passed in contravention with this circular shall be rectified in accordance with law; and (4) No refund shall be given to any dealer under S.56, RST Act, 1994 while initiating action under this circular: This bears approval of the finance department vide letter No. F.12(20)FD/Tax/05-pt. dated 6.12.2005." 14. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jewel Classic Hotel Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and ors. reported in (2006) 145 STC 75 (P & H) dealing with almost similar controversy in which the dealer of IMFL having L-4/L-5 licence which was not exempt from payment of sales tax claimed such exemption on the basis of Memorandum issued by the Excise Commissioner exempting such levy of tax in respect of IMFL sold by the Government Corporation i.e. Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited. The Division Bench held that neither on the basis of principle of promissory estoppel nor otherwise on the basis of such administrative order of Excise Commissioner, the assessee-petitioner could claim any such exemption and distinguishing the power to exempt tax from waiver of tax with respect of Haryana Tourism Corporation, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under : Factual Background from Head Note in STC "The petitioners were L-4/L-5 licenses under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Haryana for sale of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) and challenged the action of the Excise-cum-taxation authorities in raising demands for tax on sales of IMFL during the assessment year 1998-99 under Section 16-A read with entry 2(iv) of Schedule-C to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 on the ground of discrimination, alleging that while sale of IMFL and beer made by the Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited had been exempted from tax, similar benefit had not been extended to them. They also invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel asserting that after having induced in the hoteliers not to collect tax on the sale of IMFL during 1998-99, the State Government was estopped from creating demand on the basis of entry 2(iv) of Schedule-C read with Section 16-A of the Act. From the Judgment Re. Question No.1 9. Mrs. They also invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel asserting that after having induced in the hoteliers not to collect tax on the sale of IMFL during 1998-99, the State Government was estopped from creating demand on the basis of entry 2(iv) of Schedule-C read with Section 16-A of the Act. From the Judgment Re. Question No.1 9. Mrs. Lisa Gill, argued that levy of tax on IMFL/beer sold by the petitioners should be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because tax liability created against the Corporation which also hold L-4/L-5 licence has been written off by the State Government. She submitted that the petitioners and the Corporation are identically situated in the matter of sale of IMFL and/or beer and argued that in the back-drop of the decision taken by the State Government to write off the liability created by the excise authorities against the Corporation, the petitioners are also entitled to exemption from payment of tax on IMFL sold during 1998-99. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned Advocate-General, Haryana, argued that the plea of discrimination is not available to the petitioners because the Government has not exempted the Corporation from levy of sales tax on IMFL and/or beer sold during 1998-99. Shri Aggarwal also made a statement that the State Government has not waived the tax imposed on the Corporation and if any decision is taken in future to grant exemption to the Corporation from levy of sales tax, then similar benefit will be extended to the petitioners. He however, emphasized that the petitioners cannot reply on the decision taken in the meeting held on October 9, 2002 under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to write off sales tax liability of the Corporation because that is an internal matter of the department of the Government and no right, much less vested right, can be claimed by the petitioners to seek similar write off. 11. A conjoint reading of Sections 16-A and 27(3) of the Sales Tax Act shows that the sale or purchase of the goods specified in Schedule "C" is liable to be taxed at the stage and subject to the conditions contained therein. In terms of Section 27(3), the sale or purchase of IMFL is exempt from levy of tax subject to the furnishing of certificate or declaration by the dealer in the prescribed form. In terms of Section 27(3), the sale or purchase of IMFL is exempt from levy of tax subject to the furnishing of certificate or declaration by the dealer in the prescribed form. However, the exemption clause is not applicable to the sale of IMFL by L-4/L-5 licence. It is thus, clear that all transactions involving sale or purchase of IMFL are liable to sales tax at the prescribed rates. Therefore, it must be held that the petitioners, who are L-4/L-5 licensees and are not covered by the exemption clause contained in Section 27(3), are required to pay sales tax at the prescribed rate in terms of Section 16-A read with entry 2(iv) of Schedule "C" and the revisional authorities did not commit any illegality by nullifying the orders passed by the assessing authorities (except in C.W.P. No.15952 of 2004), who had accepted the petitioners' plea for deduction in lieu of the alleged tax-free sales. In our considered view, the orders passed by the assessing authorities were clearly contrary to the mandate of Section 16-A read with Entry 2(iv) of Schedule "C" of the Act and the same were rightly revised by the revisional authorities. 12. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we may notice some provisions of the Act, other than Section 27(3) which is applicable only to IMFL, under which the State Government can grant exemption from payment of sales tax. Section 13 of the Sales Tax Act empowers the State Government to exempt any class of cooperative societies/tiny industrial units or persons from payment of sales tax on the purchase or sale of any goods subject to the conditions which may be specified in the notification to be issued for grant of exemption. Section 13A empowers the State Government to exempt from levy of tax any class of goods in respect of the transactions covered under sub-clauses (ii) and (iv) of clause (j) and sub-clauses (ii) and (iv) of clause (I) of Section 2 subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification issued for the purpose. Section 13-B empowers the State Government to exempt certain classes of industries from the payment of tax for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. 13. Section 13-B empowers the State Government to exempt certain classes of industries from the payment of tax for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. 13. The petitioners have neither pleaded that their case is covered by Section 13, 13-A or 13-B nor any evidence ahs been produced before the Court to show that they are otherwise entitled to claim exemption from payment of sales tax on IMFL sold in 1998-99. Not only this, during the course of hearing, their counsel could not draw our attention to any provision of the Sales Tax Act under which the State Government can exempt the sale of IMFL by L-4/L-5 licensees. Rather, the sole argument advanced by her was that the petitioners are entitled to exemption because the State Government had decided to write off the tax liability created against the Corporation. In our opinion, in the absence of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot compel the State Government to exempt the sales made by the petitioners during 1998-99 from payment of tax ignoring the mandate of Section 16-A read with entry 2(iv) of Schedule "C" and the plea of discrimination raised by them cannot be entertained simply because the Government has taken a decision to write off the liability of the Corporation. Such decision is purely an internal matter of the Government and no right, much less a legal right, can be claimed by the petitioners either to seek exemption from payment of tax or claim a mandamus directing the Govt. to write off their tax liability as well. 15. While dealing with the question of promissory estoppel and distinguishing the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nestle India Limited vs. State of Punjab (1999) 113 STC 213 (SC) the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court further proceeded to hold as under : "19. to write off their tax liability as well. 15. While dealing with the question of promissory estoppel and distinguishing the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nestle India Limited vs. State of Punjab (1999) 113 STC 213 (SC) the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court further proceeded to hold as under : "19. In our opinion, the aforementioned decision does not support the cause of the petitioners and the doctrine of promissory equitable estoppel cannot be invoked in their case of restraining the respondents from making recovery of sales tax or IMFL and/or beer sold during 1998-99 because : (1) memo dated April 1, 1998 sent by the Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana to the Managing Director of the Corporation cannot be treated as a promise made to the petitioners that no tax would be levied on the sale of IMFL by L-4/L-5 licensees. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that memo dated April 1, 1998 was conveyed to them and that by treating it as a representation made by the State Government, they had not collected sales tax on IMFL sold to the customers; (2) there is no provision in the Act under which respondent No.3 (Excise Commissioner) can grant exemption to any kind of goods or industry from levy of sales tax. Section 13, 13-A and 13-B which provide for exemption postulate issuance of a notification by the State Government and not by the Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Under the Rules of Business framed by the Governor of Haryana in exercise of power conferred upon him under Art. 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India, no department can take a decision or pass an order which affects on the finances of the State without previous consultation with the Finance Department. For the sake of reference, Rule 7 of the Business Rules is reproduced below : 7. For the sake of reference, Rule 7 of the Business Rules is reproduced below : 7. (1) No department shall without previous consultation with the Finance Department, authorize any orders other than orders pursuant to any general delegation made by the Finance Department which : (a) either immediately or by their repercussion will affect the finances of the State or which in particular - (i) involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant lease or licence of mineral or forest rights or a right to wagter, power or any easement or privilege in respect of such concession; or (ii) in any way involve any relinquishment of revenue; or (b) relate to the number of grading or cadre of posts or the emoluments or other conditions of service of posts. (2) No proposal which requires the previous consultation of the Finance Department under this rule, but in which the Finance Department has not concurred may be proceeded with unless a decision to that effect has been taken by the Council. (3) No reappropriation shall be made by any Department other than the Finance Department, except in accordance with such general delegation as the Finance Department may have made. (4) Except to the extent that power may have been delegated to the Departments under rules approved by the Finance Department, every order of an administrative department conveying a sanction to be enforced in audit shall be communicated to the audit authorities by the Finance Department. (5) Nothing in this rule shall be construed as authorizing any department, including the Finance Department, to make reappropriation from one grant specified in the Appropriation Act to another such grant. 20. The petitioners have not placed any document before the Court to show that respondent No.3 had issued memo dated April 1, 1998 after consulting the Finance Department or that it was preceded by a decision taken by the Council of Ministers to grant exemption to the sale of IMFL by L-4/L-5 licensees. Thus, the action of respondent No.3 to issue memo dated April 1, 1998 even to the Managing Director of the Corporation was clearly an unauthorized act. Thus, the action of respondent No.3 to issue memo dated April 1, 1998 even to the Managing Director of the Corporation was clearly an unauthorized act. In any case, the same cannot be made basis for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel to relieve the petitioners of the obligation to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of law because it was clearly against the mandate of Section 16-A read with entry 2 (iv) Schedule C and Section 27(3) read with entry 24-A of Schedule B of the Act." 16. This Court also feels concerned at the issuance of such administrative orders by the Secretary concerned even though of Finance Department of the State Government where instead of clearly determining the quantum of such outstanding tax and tax due against the specified assesses to be written off which could not be recovered for particular reasons, the said Secretary has chosen to use the words "tax liability written off" (nkf;Ro viysf[kr). The same not only by far surpasses the Circular issued by the Commissioner on 13.12.2005 but also renders the amendment in CST Act w.e.f. 11.5.2002 nugatory for the State. This Court expresses its anguish and concern about such loosely drafted administrative orders which have far reaching implications. The same is liable to be quashed and is accordingly hereby quashed. 17. Consequently, while the Tax Board Order not assailed by the assessee in the present revision petition and rightly so, but against which only on a question of law arising therefrom, a revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be maintained by the petitioner – assessee, this revision petition filed for seeking refund of tax already so paid and recovered on the strength of the administrative order Annex.7 dated 16.4.2008 quoted above is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 18. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State for information.