THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11911 of 2011 June 20, 2011 Between: MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Associate Director, Mr.Manish Gupta … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11911 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the third respondent dated 31.3.2010 rejecting the petitioner’s request for grant of refund of pre-deposit is under challenge in this writ petition as being illegal and non-est. A consequential direction is sought to the respondent to refund the pre-deposit amount of Rs.41,04,284/-. In his order dated 31.3.2010, the third respondent merely states that the department has filed Tax Revision Cases (TRCs) against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in T.A.Nos.170, 171 and 184 of 2009 dated 25.9.2009 before this Court; and the Deputy Commissioner had also permitted him to withhold the pre-deposit amount until disposal of the TRCs. In several judgments, including Pulp N’ Pack Private Ltd v CTO[1], BSNL v State of Andhra Pradesh[2] and Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU[3], this Court held that, on the mere subjective opinion of the assessing authority, refund cannot be denied to the assessee; the Government, as a litigant, cannot be permitted to withhold refund merely on the ground that they intend to / have filed TRCs before the High Court; and merely on these grounds an order of refund cannot be withheld by the assessing authority concerned. Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would state that since the petitioner is carrying on business in areas located in Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, which is beyond the territorial limits of the assessing authority, it might not be possible for the assessing authority to recover the tax due in case the revenue succeeds in the TRCs pending on the file of this Court. The impugned order does not indicate any such consideration as having weighed with the assessing authority in withholding the refund amount due to the petitioner. In the light of the judgments afore-mentioned the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent from passing an order afresh keeping in mind the law laid down in the judgments afore- mentioned. In case no fresh order is passed within a period of three months from today, the amount admittedly due to the petitioners, pursuant to the order of the STAT, shall be refunded. Before parting with the case we are constrained to observe that, despite repeated judicial pronouncements of this Court, the assessing authorities continue to pass orders mechanically withholding refund due and payable to the assessees. Any orders passed, which are not in compliance with the law laid down by this Court, would necessitate a serious view being taken and appropriate action being initiated against the officer concerned for not acting in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. As the learned Standing Counsel assures that the caution administered by us would be communicated to all quasi-judicial authorities in the department by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes we refrain, for the present, from initiating action against the officer concerned. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 20, 2011 YS [1] (2009) 23 VST 573 (AP) [2] (2009) 25 VST 511 (AP) [3] (2011) 37 VST 76 (AP)