JUDGMENT : 1. The Municipal Assessment Tribunal of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation revised the assessment of the subject premises on 8th July, 2003. By virtue of this revision the valuation was lowered and the petitioner became entitled to a refund of Rs.21,433/- on account of excess municipal tax paid. This is shown in the suspense account of the Corporation. No adjustment has been made. The petitioner claims refund of this sum with interest. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation relied upon section 197 of the Kolkata Corporation Act, 1980. It is in the following terms: "197. Payment of property tax in case of objection or appeal(l) 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) is 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 ta~ 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." 3. He showed me a decision of Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya in Amal Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ors. reported in 2002(4)CHN, page 569. The following paragraph is relied upon: "7. He showed me a decision of Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya in Amal Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ors. reported in 2002(4)CHN, page 569. The following paragraph is relied upon: "7. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of the Act direct the Corporation either to refund the excess amount or to allow the same to be set-off against any present or future demand of the Corporation under this Act. It is therefore, for the Corporation to decide whether it will refund the excess amount or will claim set-off against any future or present demand. The Act has not conferred any right upon the person liable to pay tax to insist on refund and not to allow the excess to be set-off against present or future demand. The Act has not even restricted any time limit within which the right of set-off against the future demand must be exercised. Therefore, only right, a tax payer is bestowed under the said section is that he has the right to refuse any demand towards tax present on future so long the excess amount is not adjusted and the Corporation has no right to realize further tax if the excess is not refunded and/or adjusted.” 4. This was followed by Mr. Justice Debangsu Basak in an unreported judgment in the case of W.P. 1105(W) of 2004 Abhishek Karnani vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. decided on 14th May, 2015. 5. With due respect to the above judgments, in my opinion they are wrongly decided sub-section (2)(ii) of section 197 provides for a consequential order that may be made by the authority deciding the objection with regard to valuation. On a literal construction of the Sub section, on reduction of the valuation, the excess amount is ordinarily to be refunded by the Corporation. Or it may be allowed to be set off against any present or future demand. The legislature has used the words "allowed to be set off". If the Corporation could set off themselves only employment of the words "set off' would have been sufficient. "Allowed to be set of" would not have been employed. Applying the principle that the legislature does not use words that are superfluous, an interpretation has to be made of the word "allow". In my opinion, the power to allow is only with the authority, deciding on the valuation. "Allowed to be set of" would not have been employed. Applying the principle that the legislature does not use words that are superfluous, an interpretation has to be made of the word "allow". In my opinion, the power to allow is only with the authority, deciding on the valuation. Furthermore, there is one more justification for this interpretation. Say, the owner has sold the property at the time the valuation is reduced. Then, setting on' the dues against the present or future demand would adversely affect the previous owner and benefit the purchaser. Thus, an express order is required from the authority. Hence, I do not think this section gives any power to the Corporation in its administrative capacity to decide whether to refund or to adjust the amount. 6. Nothing is shown to suggest that the adjudicating authority had directed adjustment of the amount that would be found to be refundable, by set off. In any case, applying the ordinary common law principles in interpreting the said section, the Corporation could only adjust any present liability by a present or future demand against a refundable amount. It cannot keep the refundable amount in a suspense account to adjust against a future liability which has not accrued at the present point of time. Setting off a possible future liability is unknown in law. 7. The petitioner has paid his taxes in full. 8. Following judicial dispute I cannot refuse to follow those judgments, although I express my disagreement. 9. In any event, even assuming the above judgments to be correct and binding on me, the Corporation was obliged to adjust the amount against its present dues. It has not done so and kept the same in a suspense account, accepting taxes from the petitioner. 10. The submission of the learned advocate for the Corporation that section 197(b)(iii) of the said Act stipulates that the amount to be refunded shall not attract any interest, will not protect the Corporation, because, it would only protect them from paying interest if they had not accepted the tax equivalent to the amount to be refunded. When the refund or adjustment is held up for thirteen years and taxes have been taken, the protection is lost, in my opinion. 11. When the refund or adjustment is held up for thirteen years and taxes have been taken, the protection is lost, in my opinion. 11. In those circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 5% p.a. from 9th July, 2003 till today on the said sum of Rs.21,433/-. The entire amount is to be refunded or adjusted against any present due of the petitioner. If this exercise is not concluded within eight weeks from date, further interest will run from this date till the date the actual adjustment or refund is made. If there is no outstanding amount the entire sum will be refunded with interest. 12. The writ application is thus disposed of. 13. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.