JUDGMENT S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. He applied for refund of Rs. 23,937.29 paid in respect of quarter ending December 31, 1975 to December 31, 1988, excepting quarter ending June, 1977. Applications for refund made by the petitioner having been rejected on the ground that section 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, was ultra vires, petitioner approached this Court for issue of a writ and this Court while quashing the order of the Commissioner, directed fresh consideration of the applications for refund of the petitioner, considering the matter. 3. On fresh consideration, the Commissioner found that the petitioner paid Rs. 18,950 and Rs. 4,987.10 to the Food Corporation of India and the Collector, Puri, respectively. Since no order for refund flows from the orders of assessment, the Commissioner refused to entertain the applications for refund. 4. The only question for consideration in this writ application is whether claim for refund is to flow from the assessment order for exercising the power under section 14-A of the Act. 5. Section 14-A has been omitted from the Act by Act No. 23 of 1983 with effect from August 12, 1983. Notwithstanding such repeal, right accrued under the said provision would be available to be exercised in view of section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937, which reads as follows : "5. Effect of repeal. 5. Section 14-A has been omitted from the Act by Act No. 23 of 1983 with effect from August 12, 1983. Notwithstanding such repeal, right accrued under the said provision would be available to be exercised in view of section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937, which reads as follows : "5. Effect of repeal. - Where are Orissa Act repeals any enactment hitherto made, or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not - (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act has not been passed. 6. This brings us to consider the main question involved in the writ application. For considering the same, section 14-A which has stood repealed is to be kept in mind. It reads as follows : "14-A. Refund of tax in special cases. 6. This brings us to consider the main question involved in the writ application. For considering the same, section 14-A which has stood repealed is to be kept in mind. It reads as follows : "14-A. Refund of tax in special cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force where any amount is either deposited by any person user sub-section (3) of section 9-B or paid as tax by a dealer and where such amount or any part thereof is not payable by such person or dealer, a refund of such amount or any part thereof can be claimed only by the person from whom such person or dealer has actually realised such amounts whether by way of sales tax or otherwise and the period of limitation provided in the proviso to section 14 shall apply to the aforesaid claims." A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that in view of the non obstante clause refund is not controlled by any other provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force except the period of limitation as provided in section 14, proviso. Only requirement for claim of refund is : payment of an amount as tax by the dealer which is not payable by him. Therefore, the Commissioner was required to consider (i) whether the amount claimed as refund was paid as tax or otherwise by the dealer, (ii) whether the application for refund has been made within the period prescribed under section 14, proviso. Finality of any order of assessment wherefrom order of refund does not flow would not affect the claim of the dealer since the same is excluded by the non obstante clause - "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force." The Commissioner is, therefore, not justified in rejecting the applications for refund made by the petitioner. Rejection of the application for refund being bases on extraneous considerations, order (annexure 1) is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. Rejection of the application for refund being bases on extraneous considerations, order (annexure 1) is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. We direct the Commissioner to reconsider the claim for refund afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard when he is to determine whether the applications for refund are within the period of limitation as provided under section 14, proviso of the Act; whether the amount claimed to be refunded was paid by the dealer; whether the amount was paid by the dealer as tax or otherwise under the Act; and whether the same was not payable by him under the Act, Rules and notifications thereunder. Petitioner is directed to appeal before the Commissioner with a copy of this order on December 11, 1989, on which day the Commissioner shall fix a date for hearing the petitioner and shall dispose of the same on or before January 11, 1990. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed. Annexure 1 is quashed. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued in the light of the directions as made above. No costs. Requisites for issue of writ on the Commissioner shall be filed by the petitioner by tomorrow. K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J. - I agree. Writ petition allowed.