VAT refund must follow appellate relief; an uncommunicated stay cannot justify withholding the refund.

Under the VAT Act, once the first appellate authority allowed the assessee's appeal and directed refund, the assessing authority was required to make the refund within thirty days. Withholding refund for several months could not be justified merely by an uncommunicated stay order passed in exercise of suo motu revisional power. The Court noted that ex parte stay power exists in appropriate cases, but where the assessee is not informed, it cannot be left without a remedy. The refund was directed to be made immediately, and the assessee was required to appear before the revisional authority to receive notice and file a reply.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the first appellate authority allowed the assessee's appeal and directed refund, the assessing authority was bound to make refund within the statutory period and whether the uncommunicated stay order passed in exercise of suo motu revisional power justified withholding the refund.

Analysis: Once the appeal was allowed, the assessing authority became obliged to refund the amount within thirty days under the VAT Act. The absence of refund for several months could not be justified merely on the basis of a stay order that had not been communicated to the assessee. The statutory power to stay exists, including ex parte exercise in appropriate cases, but where refund has been withheld without informing the assessee of the stay, the assessee cannot be left remediless. In these circumstances, the Court directed immediate refund and required the assessee to appear before the revisional authority to receive notice and submit a reply.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount within one week while the petitioner was directed to appear before the Additional Commissioner for further proceedings.

---