A. P. MISHRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the recovery certificate dated 19th September, 1980, for Rs. 32,125. 90 as interest for the assessment year 1974-76, under section 8 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (annexure 7 to the writ petition ). According to the petitioner after the decision in the case of Mod Serajuddin [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC); 1975 UPTC 482 (SC) transaction in question is not being treated as a transaction in the course of export, even though earlier the respondents-authority also were treating it to be so. After the decision the respondents started proceeding for levying tax under the relevant provision of the Acts. The dealers in order to salvage from the onerous liability likely to be fastened on them approached the Central Government through representation for redress. The representations were also by different associations of exporters. In consequence thereof the Central Government amended the relevant provision through Act No. 103 of 1976 amending section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by adding sub-section (3) retrospectively from 1st April, 1976. However, since large number of dealers were likely to be affected even after the amendment from the period 1st April, 1976, further representations were made by the Foot-wears Export Federation of India and other associations with the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Commissioner thereafter issued the Circular No. Vidh. 1 (74-75) 10-253, dated 12th April, 1977, granting remission of sales tax, penalty, etc. , in respect of such dealers who exported footwears through State Trading Corporation. The circular is annexure 3 to the writ petition. In pith and substance it is the interpretation of this circular which we are called upon to decide. Before coming to circular it is necessary to give certain facts. The petitioners are carrying on the business of purchase and sale of footwears and entered into a contract on 12th October, 1973, with State Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred as "stc) under which the petitioner was required to supply the footwears for export to U. S. S. R. It is only to fulfil the promise of this contract the petitioner's company has to purchase the footwears for despatch of the same to Moscow through their agent. For the assessment year, 1974-75 the petitioner was assessed to purchase tax on the purchase of Rs. 6,90,889 creating total liability of Rs. 34,544. 45. According to the petitioner the sale and purchase tax on the supply of footwear to STC by the petitioner for the purpose of export to the foreign buyer of Moscow, on account of the belief, both of the petitioners and respondent-authority was exempt and thus he did not deposit tax initially, as the petitioner felt no liability of purchase tax on such supply for the proposed export in view of the law as understood then. After passing the assessment order for 1974-75 on 25th October, 1978, the petitioner approached the respondent for granting remission of purchase tax and since this did not materialise, having no option he deposited the entire purchase tax as assessed. It is thereafter a demand has been raised by passing order under section 8 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act imposing interest on the said amount of purchase tax totalling Rs. 32,125. 92 with effect from 1st June, 1975. Thereafter recovery certificate under section 8 (8) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was also issued for recovering the said amount, hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is pertinent to mention here for the same assessment year, namely, 1974-76 under the Central Sales Tax Act also respondent No. 2 passed orders on 25th October, 1978, in respect of sale made by the petitioner to the foreign buyer imposing Rs. 1,42,825. 50 as tax under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, but in view of the circular of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, no notice of demand was issued for recovery of the said amount of tax. In fact the order (annexure 5 to the writ petition) itself recites not to recover the said amount. It is in this context the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that now even though the petitioner deposited the total amount of tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act though he was entitled for exemption in view of the Commissioner's circular which he does not press, but since the respondent-authority has now proceeded further to impose interest on the said amount under section 8 (1) of the U. P. Act and recovery is being pressed as aforesaid hence the present writ petition. Thus question, we have to consider now is the Commissioner's circular. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder in roman : " Vishay : Videshi ko niryat kiye juto par diya bikrikar se mukti. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Groupo dwara State Trading Corporation ki ki gai un juto ki bikri par jo corporation dwara duso re desho ko niryat kiye gaye hai vidhwat dei pradeshiya tatha kendrea bikri kar ki rashi maf kar diye jai sath hi asse dei rashi byaj tatha asropith arthdandh yadi koi ho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " It is true in the subject of the said letter as quoted above, this referred to exemption of sales tax on the footwears exported to other countries. The word used therein of granting exemption of sales tax is broadly used. However, the language used in the said circular is not confined to exemption from sales tax only, but clearly speaks of granting exemption to such dealers on the tax payable by them either in the U. P. or under the Central Sales Tax Act where footwears were sold to State Trading Corporation for its export. In fact we find the assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act (annexure 5 to the writ petition) also has been passed in the same line. After the assessing authority imposing tax as against the petitioner in the last line recorded no demand to be sent to the petitioners and in fact petitioners have been absolved from the said tax under the Central Act. When the said circular used the words both State and the Central Act, for granting exemption, it was referring to any tax leviable under the aforesaid two Acts. Admittedly the said circular was issued in pursuance of the representation of the footwear dealers and in light of amendment made by the Central Government relief was granted under the Sales Tax Act. The circular dated 12th April, 1977, also clearly indicates exemption of tax of such dealers both under the State and Central Acts which would include purchase tax as levied under the U. P. Act under section 3-D. In the transaction in question the dealer purchased the footwears within India and thereafter sold it to STC for being exported outside India. If interpretation given on behalf of the respondent is to be accepted that the said circular only confines to sales tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, then in law on such transaction the purchase tax has to be levied. On the other hand, we find on the aforesaid transaction the purchase tax under section 3-D on purchases made by the dealer is leviable when such goods are sold to STC. The sales tax is not levied. Both the sales tax and purchase tax will not be levied under the transaction in question. Admittedly in this case the purchase tax has been levied and in case we have to interpret in the limited sense that the said circular only confines to the exemption of the sales tax then it would mean that no one can get relief under the aforesaid circular in respect of transaction in question. Thus, it is not possible to accept the interpretation given by the respondent to the said circular. We are clearly of the opinion that the said circular will also include the exemption to dealer on such transaction on which purchase tax is leviable under section 3-D. However, the petitioners have already paid the purchase tax and has only challenged the assessment order passed under section 8 (1) imposing interest and recovery proceeding for the imposition of interest on the aforesaid purchase tax under section 8 (8 ). In the light of observations made by us above, we, on the facts of this case, quash the assessment order for imposition of interest under section 8 (1) and recovery proceeding under section 8 (8), annexures 1 and 7 respectively. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed .;