( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Baroda on 14/10/1985, Annexure-A to the petition and by directing the respondent authorities to pay interest to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 214 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on excess amount paid by him.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that it is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Air Conditioning, having principal office at Baroda. The petitioner filed income-tax returns for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 before the Income- tax Officer, Circle : I, Ward : A. The I. T. O. made assessment order and held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of certain amounts. He, however, did not allow interest on the ground that the last instalment of the advance tax was not paid by the petitioner within the stipulated period, though it was paid before the end of financial year.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached Commissioner of Income-Tax, Baroda by filing a revision under Sec. 264 of the Act. The commissioner of Income-Tax, Baroda rejected the revision, inter alia, observing that I. T. O. was right in not allowing interest on the ground that the last instalment of advance tax was not paid within time. It could not, therefore, be said that the action of I. T. O. in not paying interest was improper or illegal. The attention of the Commissioner of Income-Tax was invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Textiles Works, 114 ITR 28 in which it was held that if payment of advance tax was made before the expiry of the financial year in question, the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 of the Act. Regarding that decision, the commissioner observed :"as the decision has not been accepted by the department, at present the claim of assessee is rejected. If the supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Textiles Works, decides the issue in favour of tax-payers, then the ratio of Supreme Courts decision in the case of Bharat Textiles Works (supra) would apply to the assessee also and the i. T. O. would give effect of Supreme Courts decision in the case of assessee also for these years. " (emphasis supplied)

( 4 ) MR. J. G. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the point was concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Textiles Works (supra ). He strenuously argued that the action of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (respondent No. 2) in not following the decision in the case of Bharat Textiles Works (supra) was illegal and improper. He was bound to follow the law declared by this court. It is not open to a subordinate Court or an inferior Tribunal to ignore or keep aside a decision of this Court and to decide the matter as per his sweet will. The impugned order thus suffers from legal infirmity and requires to be interfered with.

( 5 ) MR. M. J. Thakore, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and it cannot be said that any error of law apparent on the face of record has been committed by the second respondent in not granting prayer of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the petition requires to be dismissed.

( 6 ) HAVING given anxious and thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that petition requires to be allowed. It is not disputed even by the revenue that the point is concluded by a pronouncement of this Court in the case of Bharat Textiles works (supra ). Mr. Thakore frankly stated that above view is reiterated subsequently by this Court in the case of Chimanlal Patel v. C. I. T. and Anr. , 210 ITR 419.

( 7 ) IN view of the above legal position, the petition requires to be allowed and the order passed by the second respondent which is clearly contrar