( 1 ). IN this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus, directing the respondents to refund to the petitioner with interest a sum of Rs. 1,65,710/-, in terms of an assessment order dated 14th July, 1980, relevant to assessment year 1976-77. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under:

( 2 ). The petitioner-company is running a hotel in Delhi and is registered as a dealer under the delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short the Act ). For the assessment year 1976-77, the respondent-assessing authority completed the assessment proceedings in terms of an order of assessment dated 14th July, 1980. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Northern india Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1978) 42 STC 386, the assessing authority held that while sales made to non-residents were exigible to sales tax those made to residents in the hotel were not. It accordingly finalised the assessment and determined a total tax liability of Rs. 1,53,963. 45 as against an amount of Rs. 3,19,673. 17 deposited by the petitioner towards tax. The excess amount of Rs. 1,65,709. 72 was, consequently, held refundable to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE petitioner s grievance in the present writ petition now is that although the assessment order held it entitled to the refund of the amount aforementioned and although repeated requests for refund of the said amount have been made in writing to the respondents, the later have not done the needful. A mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the amount, has therefore, been prayed for.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf respondents, several defenses have been set up. It is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund, claimed by it as the burden of the tax had been passed on by it to the customers, implying thereby that the refund would result in unjust enrichment of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the order of assessment under which the petitioner was held entitled to refund was being suo motu revised under Section 46 by the authority competent to do so. It is further alleged that in the light of the provisions contained in The Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) act, 1982, no refund was admissible to the dealer and that the Commissioner of Sales Tax had in exercise of his powers under Section 30 (6) of the Act directed withholding of the refund by his order dated 12th march, 1983. A copy of the order passed by the Assistant commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 46 of the Act proposing to revise the assessment order and that passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi under Section 30 (6) of the Act withholding the refund till the disposal of the suo motu revision proceedings have also been placed on record.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ). The first limb of the defence set up by the respondents is that the order of assessment was being revised by the competent authority under Section 46 of the Act and that pending such revision, the commissioner of Sales Tax had, by order dated 12th March, 1983, directed withholding of the refund. At the hearing before us, Mr. Batra was unable to state whether the revisional proceedings initiated by the authority concerned had been taken to their logical conclusion and, if so, to what effect. No information was forthcoming from the respondents regarding the fate of the proceedings initiated in terms of notice dated 1st March, 1983. We regret to say that the respondents have not shown due diligence in keeping their counsel informed about the proceedings which appear to have been initiated at some stage of the controversy. There is an element of callous indifference on the part of the respondents in this regard which leaves much to be desired. The respondents have tremendous resources and man power at their disposal. We fail to understand why the Sales Tax depa