Refund claim after revisional order attained practical finality, as no proof showed any further challenge was pending.

In the absence of proof that the revisional order had been challenged by appeal or special leave petition, the Court treated the matter as no longer sub judice on the record before it. Relying on the Advocate-on-Record communication and the discharge of the bank guarantees by the assessing authority, it held that the petitioner's refund representations required consideration in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to process the refund claim and refund the admissible amount within six weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of proof of any appeal or special leave petition against the revisional order, the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess tax paid.

Analysis: The respondents failed to produce any written proof that the revisional order had been challenged. On the materials placed, including the communication from the Advocate-on-Record and the discharge of the bank guarantees by the assessing authority, the Court accepted that there was nothing to show that the matter was still sub judice. In that situation, the petitioner's representations seeking refund required consideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded to the extent that the first respondent was directed to consider the representations and effect refund of the admissible amount within six weeks.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to process the refund claim in accordance with law, the dispute having attained practical finality on the record before the Court.

---