Statutory refund cannot be withheld on a mere proposed revision; refund must follow unless a valid pending proceeding exists.

Statutory refund could not be withheld merely because the department was considering revision against the appellate order, since the withholding power operated only where the refund order was already under a pending appeal or further proceeding and only through the prescribed authority with prior approval. The refund retention was therefore unjustified, and refund of the tax and penalty collected was due. The separate claim for costs and damages was also not granted in writ jurisdiction because no award by a competent authority or court was shown and the record did not support such relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revenue could withhold refund of the amount realised towards tax and penalty on the ground that the department was contemplating revision against the appellate order; and (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled in writ jurisdiction to the additional sum claimed towards costs and damages.

Issue (i): whether the revenue could withhold refund of the amount realised towards tax and penalty on the ground that the department was contemplating revision against the appellate order.

Analysis: Refund under the statutory scheme was required to be given effect to within the prescribed time after communication of the appellate order. The power to withhold refund under section 33-C was confined to cases where the refund-giving order was the subject-matter of a pending appeal or further proceeding, and the power could be exercised only by the assessing authority with previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner. A mere departmental contemplation to invoke revisional powers did not amount to a proceeding for this purpose, and in any event no valid withholding order had been made by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The withholding of refund was unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount realised towards tax and penalty.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled in writ jurisdiction to the additional sum claimed towards costs and damages.

Analysis: No order by any competent authority or court awarding the claimed amount was shown, and such a claim could not be granted in the writ proceedings on the material before the Court.

Conclusion: The claim for the additional sum towards costs and damages was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of refund of the amount retained by the department, but the separate monetary claim for costs and damages failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power to withhold a refund can be exercised only when the refund-giving order is already the subject of a pending appeal or further proceeding and only by the authority empowered by the statute; a mere proposed revision does not justify withholding refund.

---