JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. Is the Corporation liable to refund the amount deposited with it under Section 197 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with interest and if so, at what rate? 2. Such issue emanates from the factual matrix which is adumbrated hereafter. The petitioner is an assessee in respect of Property Tax payable under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The Hearing Officer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation by an Order dated March 14, 1996 had fixed an annual valuation of the property concerned. This annual valuation had resulted in a quantum of Property tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by such order of fixation of annual valuation by the Hearing Officer had filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. Such writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated October 23, 1997 which had directed the writ petitioner to deposit the full amount of the tax assessed to prefer an appeal from the order of the Hearing Officer before the appellate authority established under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 being Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The petitioner had deposited such amounts. The petitioner had preferred two appeals before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal against the order of the Hearing Officer. The appeals were ultimately disposed of by an Order dated June 19, 2001. The Municipal Assessment Tribunal had reduced the annual valuation that what was fixed by the Hearing Officer. By reason of such reduction in the annual valuation, the Property Tax incidence on the petitioner stood reduced. The petitioner, therefore, became entitled to receive refund out of the sum deposited when preferring the appeal. The petitioner had thereafter by several letters requested the Corporation authorities to refund the excess amount deposited. The Corporation authorities had claimed that they were entitled to some amounts of Property Tax from the petitioner for other periods. In its correspondence the petitioner had also asked for adjustment of the excess amount paid with the liability of the petitioner to the Corporation and for refund. Even after adjustment, the petitioner is entitled to refund. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking refund together with interest. The Corporation authorities are agreeable to refund, however, without any interest. 3. Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner is entitled to refund together with interest. Even after adjustment, the petitioner is entitled to refund. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking refund together with interest. The Corporation authorities are agreeable to refund, however, without any interest. 3. Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner is entitled to refund together with interest. He contrasts the existing provisions of Section 197(iii) with Section 197 operating at the point of time when the petitioner had made the deposit pursuant thereto. It is contended that, Section 197 had been amended with effect from May 1, 2007. The petitioner had deposited the amount in terms of the unamended Section 197. It is submitted that, Section 197(iii) now clarifies that such refund amount would not accrue any interest. Such provisions with regard to no interest being payable on the amount to be refunded were not there in the unamended Section 197. 4. Relying on 1999 West Bengal Law Reporter (Cal) page 527 (Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.) it is submitted that, the Corporations authorities are liable to refund the excess amount taken on deposit together with interest. It is submitted that the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 are attracted in such cases. 5. With regard to the rate of interest payable by the Corporation authorities it is submitted that the same rate of interest should be levied on refund as enjoined under Section 217(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for default of payment of Property Tax. 6. Mr. Dutta however fairly draws the attention of the Court to 2002 Volume 4 Calcutta High Court Notes page 569 (Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) and submits that, the Court has held that no interest is payable by the Corporation authorities after considering Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra). 7. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the Corporation authorities submits that, Section 197 of the Act of 1980 as it stood at the relevant point of time did not provide for payment of interest on refundable tax. It is submitted that, when a statute does not provide for payment of interest on tax, then the Corporation authorities who are the creatures of a statute should not be directed to do something which is beyond the statute. It is submitted that, when a statute does not provide for payment of interest on tax, then the Corporation authorities who are the creatures of a statute should not be directed to do something which is beyond the statute. When the statute does not provide for payment of interest, the Corporation authorities could not be directed to pay interest as in such an event, the Corporation authorities would be required to go beyond the statute in paying interest. Mr. Mukherjee submits that a writ petition to claim interest is not maintainable as no right of the petitioner has been infringed and relies upon All India Reporter 1998 SC page 1729 (Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Orient Enterprises & Anr.), 1997 Volume 106 Sales Tax Cases page 460 (SC) (India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam) in support of such contention. Relying upon 2007 Volume 211 Excise Law times page 519 (S.C.) (State of Punjab v. Atul Fasteners Ltd.), 2001 Volume 132 Excise Law times page 519 (S.C.) (Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India) and 1999 Volume 114 Sales Tax Cases page 88 (Ambica Chemicals Products v. Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru, W.G. Dist. & Anr.) it is submitted that, interest cannot be granted on the basis of equity under a tax enactment. 8. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner is blowing hot and cold at the same time. The petitioner has asked for adjustment as well as refund before the Corporation authorities. The petitioner is now asking for refund along with interest. When the petitioner has asked for adjustment, he is not entitled to refund along with interest. The moment the petitioner asks for adjustment, the petitioner allows the Corporation authorities to retain the amount refundable and, therefore, disentitles himself from asking interest on the refundable amount. The Corporation authorities are prepared to make over the refundable amount to the petitioner without any interest. 9. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 42,455/- on October 27, 1997 and a sum of Rs.1,77,103/- on December 9, 1997. The order of the Hearing Officer is dated March 14, 1996. The Order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal is dated June 19, 2001. Section 197 of the Act of 1980 stipulates that an appeal against an order of the Hearing Officer would be entertained only upon deposit of the tax assessed. 10. The order of the Hearing Officer is dated March 14, 1996. The Order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal is dated June 19, 2001. Section 197 of the Act of 1980 stipulates that an appeal against an order of the Hearing Officer would be entertained only upon deposit of the tax assessed. 10. Section 197 of the Act of 1980 has been amended with effect from May 1, 2007. Prior to its amendment Section 197 of the Act of 1980 was as follows:- "197. Payment of property tax in case of objection or appeal.- (1) When an objection to a valuation has been made under section 186, the property tax shall, pending the determination of the objection under section 188, be payable on the previous valuation in the usual manner. (2) If, after the objection has been determined under section 188, the previous valuation is altered, or after the appeal has been disposed of under section 189, the valuation decided under section 188 is altered, then- (a) any sum paid or deposited under section 189 in excess shall be refunded or allowed to be set-off against any present or future demand of the Corporation under this Act, and (b) any deficiency shall be deemed to be an arrear of the property tax and shall be payable and recoverable as such: Provided that- (i) if any premises have, for the purposes of valuation under section 179 or section 180, been for the first time valued or sub-divided or amalgamated with any other premises and an objection to the valuation thereof has been made under section 186, then the property tax shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be paid on such valuation; and (ii) if, when such objection has been finally determined, such valuation is reduced, and if the property tax has already been paid thereon, then the sum paid in excess shall be refunded or allowed to be set-off against any present or future demand of the Corporation under this Act." 11. Section 197 of the Act of 1980 after amendment and as obtaining today is as follows:- "197. Section 197 of the Act of 1980 after amendment and as obtaining today is as follows:- "197. Payment of property tax in case of objection or appeal.- If after the disposal of any appeal under section 189, the valuation decided under section 174 or section 188 is altered, then- (a) any sum paid or deposited under section 189 in excess shall be refunded or allowed to be set off against any present or future demand of the Corporation under this Act; and (b) any deficiency shall be deemed to be an arrear of the property tax and shall be payable and recoverable as such: Provided that- (i) if any premises have, for the purposes of valuation under section 179 or section 180, been for the first time valued or sub-divided or amalgamated with any other premises and an objection to the valuation thereof has been made under section 186, then the property tax shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be paid on such valuation; (ii) if, when such objection has been finally determined, such valuation is reduced, and if the property tax has already been paid thereon, then the sum paid in excess shall be refunded or allowed to be set-off against any present or future demand of the Corporation under this Act. (iii) in case of refund, if any, is to be made by the Corporation to the assessee, such refund amount shall not accrue any interest thereon." 12. Prior to its amendment Section 197 did not have any provision for payment of interest on any amount to be refunded. Subsequent to its amendment and as obtaining today Section 197 expressly provides that in case of refund such amount would not accrue any interest. 13. In M/s. Orient Enterprises & Anr. (supra) the question considered by the Supreme Court is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a relief for payment of interest on delayed refund of the amount paid by the assessee towards the customs duty, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was maintainable. It has been held that the petitioner has not legal right to claim the refund under the relevant statute. It has been held that the petitioner has not legal right to claim the refund under the relevant statute. Since at the relevant time there was no statutory right entitling the writ petitioner to payment of interest on delayed refund the writ petition filed by it was not for the enforcement of a legal right available to it under any statute. The claim for interest was in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money. A writ petition for such purpose has been held to be maintainable. 14. In India Carbon Ltd. (supra) it has been held that there is no substantive provision in the Central Sales Tax Act requiring payment of interest. The Sales Tax authorities of the State could not, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing payment of Central Sales Tax charges interest thereon. 15. In Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (supra) it has been held that a writ petition seeking relief of payment of interest on delayed refund of amount paid by the assessee towards custom duty is not an appropriate remedy. 16. In Atul Fasteners Ltd. (supra) it has been held that interest could not be granted on the basis of equity under the tax enactment. 17. Ambica Chemicals Products (supra) has negated the contention that an assessee would be entitled to interest on the ground of equity and equality of treatment between the parties. 18. Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra) has considered the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the Interest Act, 1978 and is of the view that the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 are attracted and that under Section 4(2)(a) of the Interest Act, 1978 an assessee is entitled to interest on refundable tax. It has been submitted at the bar that the Division Bench had approved of Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra). However, the judgment of the Division Bench has not been placed for consideration during hearing. 19. Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra) has considered Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra), M/s. Orient Enterprises & Anr. (supra) and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (supra) amongst other authorities cited. It is of the view that Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra) could not be accepted as a precedent. 19. Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra) has considered Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra), M/s. Orient Enterprises & Anr. (supra) and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (supra) amongst other authorities cited. It is of the view that Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra) could not be accepted as a precedent. It has been held in paragraphs 4, 5, 18 and 19 as follows:- "4.………………………………………………………… Before entering into the questions involved herein, it will be appropriate to refer to the scope of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the various authorities and organs of State act in accordance with law. The applicant in order to maintain a writ application must satisfy court that there has been infringement of his fundamental or existing legal right by the act or omission on the part of State. Such legal right may be a statutory one or other right or interest recognised by law. 5. Therefore, in the case before us, in order to get the reliefs claimed, the petitioners must establish that law casts a duty upon the Corporation to refund the excess amount with interest, the moment their appeal before Tribunal has succeeded resulting in reduction of annual valuation." "18. With great respect to Kundu, J and the Division Bench [S. B. Sinha, (as His Lordship then was) and M. H. S. Ansari, JJ] I am unable to accept the decisions in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) as a precedent in this case for the following reasons:- (a) In the said case, writ application having been filed claiming interest only after the Corporation refunded the excess money, the Court had no occasion to consider the defense of the Corporation in this case that in a given case, the Corporation can refuse to refund excess money and claim set-off: whereas in the present case, the petitioners have prayed for refund of excess money after adjustment and interest thereon. Therefore, if the Corporation succeeds in establishing that it is within its competence not to refund, no question of payment of interest arises. Therefore, if the Corporation succeeds in establishing that it is within its competence not to refund, no question of payment of interest arises. (b) In the said case, although the writ application was filed claiming only interest after the principal excess amount was paid pursuant to direction of Chatterjee, J in an earlier writ application, attention of the courts was not drawn to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Orient Enterprises & Anr., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1729 and Suganmall v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1965 SC 1740 , holding that a writ application seeking relief of interest on delayed refund was not maintainable and as such the said writ application was not maintainable. Even, in a subsequent decision in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Union of India, 2001 (132) ELT 14 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has followed the same principle by passing the following order:- "We agree with the High Court that the filing of a writ petition seeking relief of payment of interest on delayed refund of the amount paid by the petitioner (assessee) towards custom duty is not an appropriate remedy". Therefore any law laid down in a writ application which is not even maintainable cannot be cited as a precedent. (c) The Interest Act, 1978 merely enables a court to allow interest under certain circumstances provided in the said Act in any proceedings for recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made. But if a writ application itself is not maintainable for recovery of interest in respect of a debt or damages already paid as held by Supreme Court, a writ court cannot exercise such discretion by taking aid of the power conferred by the Interest Act. (d) In the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited the proceedings were for recovery of interest in respect of a debt already paid pursuant to the order passed by Chatterjee, J in an earlier writ application. Therefore, the proceeding before Kundu, J was one for recovery of interest on a 'judgment-debt' already paid. (d) In the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited the proceedings were for recovery of interest in respect of a debt already paid pursuant to the order passed by Chatterjee, J in an earlier writ application. Therefore, the proceeding before Kundu, J was one for recovery of interest on a 'judgment-debt' already paid. The word 'debt' defined in Section 2(c) of the Interest Act means "liability for an ascertained sum of money and includes a debt payable in kind but does not include a judgment debt." 19. Thus, the Interest Act was not applicable to a proceeding for recovery of interest on an amount already paid if such amount is not a 'debt' within the meaning of the said Act. Suffice it to say, the amount already paid was not 'damages'. 20. The Division Bench rendered in Larsen & Toubro Limited & Ors. (supra) has not been placed before me for consideration. Mr. Dutta did not distinguish Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra). Mr. Dutta did not urge any ground which has not been considered in Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra) excepting the amendment to Section 197 of the Act of 1980 which has happened subsequent to such judgment. Mr. Dutta has urged that the amendment to Section 197 of the Act of 1980 would demonstrate that prior to such amendment, interest was payable by the Corporation on delayed refund of Property Tax. 21. Prior to its amendment, Section 197 of the Act of 1980 was silent as to payment of interest for delayed refund of Property Tax. After amendment, Section 197 of the Act of 1980 specifies that no interest is payable on refund of Property Tax. Section 197 of the Act of 1980 as it stood prior to amendment has been considered in Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra). 22. A writ petition is maintainable to enforce a constitutional or a legal right. The writ petitioner herein has not demonstrated accrual of any right in its favour by reason of non-refund of the excess amount of Property Tax deposited with the Corporation authorities. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was allowed by the Writ Court to prefer an appeal against the order of the Hearing Officer subject to the writ petitioner depositing the amount required to be deposited under statute. The facts of this case are akin to that of Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra). In the instant case, the writ petitioner was allowed by the Writ Court to prefer an appeal against the order of the Hearing Officer subject to the writ petitioner depositing the amount required to be deposited under statute. The facts of this case are akin to that of Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra). 23. I respectfully follow Amal Kumar Roychowdhury & Anr. (supra). The Corporation is not liable to refund any amount deposited with it under Section 197 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with interest. Since no interest is payable the question of rate of interest does not arise. The issue raised in the writ petition is answered accordingly. 24. Since the writ petitioner is found not to be entitled to any interest on refund of the excess Property Tax, the question of quantification of the rate of interest does not arise. In the present petition, the writ petitioner has claimed refund with interest. The Corporation authorities in the course of hearing however have volunteered to refund the excess Property Tax to the writ petitioner. In such view, the Corporation authorities will refund the excess amount to the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Needless to say the Corporation authorities need not pay any interest thereon, if the refund is made within the time allowed. W.P. No. 1105 of 2004 is disposed of with such directions, however without any order as to costs. Petition disposed of.