ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred for getting reimbursement of the excess tax paid under Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the “CST Act”) which is at Rs.17,89,412/-as per the order of refund passed by the respondents which is at Annexure6 to the memo of this writ petition. 2. This petitioner is manufacturing coke from coal. Coal is purchased by the petitioner from the State of Jharkhand as an intra-State sale. Upon purchase of coal, the amount of tax under State Sales Tax was paid at Rs.17,89,412.38/-Paise which is equal to Rs.17,89,412/-, as mentioned in order at Annexure6 to the memo of this writ petition. 3. Coal is converted into coke and the same is sold to the parties outside the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the sale of coke is an inter-State sale. For inter-State sale of coke, Central Sales Tax is leviable and the same is paid at Rs.63,80,572.73/Paise which is equal to Rs.63,80,573/-. This assessment order is at Annexure4 to the memo of this writ petition dated 4 th August, 2011 and the payment of this amount has been mentioned at page no.55, which is part and parcel of Annexure-4. 4. Looking to Section 15(b) of the CST Act, the amount of tax paid upon coal as an intra-State sale under the State Sales Tax Act should have been reimbursed when the end product coke is sold to the parties outside the State of Jharkhand as an inter-State sale. 5. In the facts of the present case, Central Sales Tax has already been paid by the petitioner for sale of coke which is at Rs.63,80,573/. For the ready reference, Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as under: “15. Registration and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. 5. In the facts of the present case, Central Sales Tax has already been paid by the petitioner for sale of coke which is at Rs.63,80,573/. For the ready reference, Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as under: “15. Registration and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely:- (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed five per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof; (b) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, and tax has been paid under this Act in respect of the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax levied under such law shall be reimbursed to the person making such sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State; (c) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any paddy referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (i) of section 14, the tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy; (ca) where a tax on sale or purchase of paddy referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (i) of section 14 is leviable under the law and the rice procured out of such paddy is exported out of India, then, for the purposes of subsection (3) of section (5), the paddy and rice shall be treated as a single commodity; (d) each of the pulses referred to in clause (via) of section 14, whether whole or separated, and whether with or without husk, shall be treated as a single commodity for the purposes of levy of tax under that law.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that under the State Sales Tax while purchasing coal as an intra-State sale, tax paid at Rs.17,89,412/-should have been reimbursed with interest under Section 15(b) of the CST Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that excess demand notice to be annexed with the refund application is not meant for reimbursement of the State Sales Tax when the declared goods for special importance is sold as inter-State sale. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that refund application was not in proper format and excess demand notice was not annexed with the refund application, as required under Rules 35(4) and 35(6) to be read with Rule 34(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 enacted under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. 8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that coal was purchased by this petitioner as an intra-State sale upon which State Sales Tax was paid at Rs.17,89,412/-. 9. It further appears from the facts of the case that coal was treated and was converted into coke by this petitioner and end product was sold away as an inter-State sale upon which Central Sales Tax was assessed and levied in view of Annexure-4 at Rs.63,80,573/-. This amount has also been paid towards 4Central Sales Tax. 10. Looking to Section 15(b) of the CST Act, whenever any declared goods of special importance has been purchased and if under the State Sales Tax any amount of tax is paid, the same shall be reimbursed if end product is sold as inter-State sale and Central Sales Tax is paid. 11. Looking to Annexure-4 to be read with Annexure-6, it appears that Central Sales Tax was paid at Rs.63,80,573/-and State Sales Tax was paid at Rs.17,89,412/-. 12. Even refund application was also preferred as per FormXXIII and as per Rule 35 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. 13. An order has been passed upon the refund application which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of this writ petition and the Sales Tax to be reimbursed, which was paid towards State Sales Tax, is at Rs.17,89,412/-. 14. Even refund application was also preferred as per FormXXIII and as per Rule 35 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. 13. An order has been passed upon the refund application which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of this writ petition and the Sales Tax to be reimbursed, which was paid towards State Sales Tax, is at Rs.17,89,412/-. 14. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that with refund application excess demand notice was never annexed as per Rules 35(4) and 35(6) to be read with Rule 34(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons of following absolutely undisputed facts:- (a) Sales Tax paid under the State Sales Tax by this petitioner for purchase of the coal as an intrastate sale is at Rs.17,89,412/-. (b) The coal is converted into coke and now the coke is sold as an inter-State sale. Hence, Central Sales Tax has to be paid @ 4% because the same is declared goods of special importance under Section 14 of the CST Act. For the Central Sales Tax, there is an order of assessment and there is payment of Sales Tax also, which is at Rs.63,80,573/-. (c) As per Section 15(b) of the CST Act, when end product is sold as inter-State sale and Central Sales Tax is already paid and for the purchase 5of raw material if any tax is paid under the State Sales Tax, the same shall be reimbursed. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to Annexure4 and Annexure-6, it appears that this petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of amount equal to State Sales Tax paid upon purchase of coal which is at Rs.17,89,412/-and for such type of refund application, excess demand notice is not required to be annexed. 16. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hereby direct the respondents to reimburse the State Sales Tax paid by this petitioner towards purchase of coal which is at Rs.17,89,412/-as per order at Annexure6 to the memo of this writ petition, with statutory rate of interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 18. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 18. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2342 of 2017 is also disposed of in view of final order passed in the writ petition.