Judgment :- BAKTHAVATSALAM, J. The prayer in the writ petition is : "... to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 59, 191 together with interest at 24 per cent per annum pursuant to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, passed in M.T.A. No. 382 of 1985 dated 1st October, 1985, for the assessment year 1982-83 and pass further other order, ...." * 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 28th June, 1989. 3. Mr. R. Lokapriya, Additional Government Pleader, appears for the Commercial Taxes Department. 4. It seems that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) has passed an order in M.T.A. No. 382 of 1985 on 1st October, 1985, giving certain relief to the petitioner for the assessment year 1982-83. The complaint of the petitioner is that the order of the Tribunal has not been given effect to so far. The further complaint of the petitioner is that it is entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs. 59, 191 with interest from 1st October, 1985. 5. Learned Government Advocate is not able to dispute the position that an order has been passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. The argument that learned Government Advocate is able to put forth is that a tax case has been filed before this Court. Learned Government Advocate also draws the attention of this Court to a communication by the Deputy Commissioner, made in July, 1988, requesting the petitioner to give sufficient security for getting refund. 6. I do not think, that the action of the respondent can be supported on any ground. The petitioner is entitled to get the refund from the respondent and the respondent is bound by the Tribunal's order. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Salem 1978 (2) ELT 551 , 1971 (28) STC 483 , where Veeraswami, C.J. speaking for the Bench, has held, "So long as the order of the Tribunal is not set aside, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner is bound to give effect to it, and his failure to do so on the ground that the department has filed an appeal will be really a contempt of the Tribunal's order." * 7. In my view the principle enunciated by the learned Chief Justice applies to the facts of this case. Hence a mandamus would issue to the respondent to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 1st October, 1985, in M.T.A. No. 382 of 1985. Under section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent. Hence the respondent is directed to refund the amount with interest to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.