Anil R. Dave, J.

The short question involved in this petition is whether the respondent - authorities have unfettered right to withhold the amount payable to the petitioner by way of refund under the provisions of section 40(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the APVAT Act").

The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under :

By virtue of an order dated November 28, 2007 passed in T.A. No. 1142 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, "the STAT"), a sum of Rs. 14,52,29,260, has become payable to the petitioner. As the said amount was not refunded to the petitioner by the respondent - authorities, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 14312 of 2007 before this court praying for a direction to the respondent - authorities for refund of the aforestated amount. After hearing the concerned advocates, this court, by an order dated : June 9, 2008, disposed of the petition by observing that the petitioner should make a representation to the respondent - authorities for refund of the amount. Accordingly, a representation dated September 30, 2008 was made by the petitioner, but the said representation has been turned down by the impugned order dated February 19, 2009.

By virtue of the impugned order dated February 19, 2009, respondent No. 2 has opined that grant of refund of Rs. 14,52,29,260 is likely to adversely affect the Revenue and, therefore, he has ordered withholding of the said amount till further orders under the power vested in him under section 33C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the APGST Act") read with section 40(2) of the APVAT Act. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order, the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to pay the amount of refund with interest thereon.

The learned Senior Advocate, Sri E. Manohar, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to several provisions of the APVAT Act so as to make out a case on merits that the petitioner had rightly succeeded before the STAT.

We are of the view that we need not go into merits of the case for the reason that T.R.C. No. 245 of 2008 filed by the respondent - authorities against the order passed by the STAT in T.A. No. 1142 of 2007 is pending before this court. At this juncture, we are not at all concerned with the merits of the case because prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for refund of the amount along with interest thereon and, therefore, though learned Senior Advocate, Sri E. Manohar has made several submissions on merits of the case, we do not go into the same.

It has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate, Sri E. Manohar that the petitioner had succeeded before the STAT and it is not in dispute that by virtue of the impugned order passed by the STAT, the aforestated amount of Rs. 14,52,29,260 has become payable to the petitioner. He has fairly admitted that TRC No. 245 of 2008 has been filed against the order in T.A. No. 1142 of 2007 passed by the STAT, but this court has not granted any order with regard to stay of implementation of the aforestated order and, therefore, the amount payable to the petitioner must be paid by the respondent - authorities.

The learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the judgment delivered by this court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 100 ITR 401. It has been submitted by him that though the said case relates to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, this court : has observed in the said judgment that the power conferred on the Income-tax Officer for withholding the amount of refund and interest thereon is not absolute. The officer must be satisfied that the interest of the Revenue would suffer by granting refund of amount, and only in that event, the amou