JUDGMENT D. N. Baruah, J. - In this application under article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and carries on business at Tangla, Darrang District, Assam. This firm is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioners' firm paid taxes for the period ending September 30, 1991, March 31, 1992, September 30, 1992 and March 31, 1993 and June 30, 1993. After the assessment by the authority concerned it was found that the petitioner - firm paid taxes in excess of Rs. 1,40,030. The petitioner submitted application under section 30 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for refund of tax-paid in excess before the respondent No. 3 on December 20, 1994. In spite of repeated reminders the authority did not refund the amount paid in excess and kept the matter pending without disposal. Hence the present petition. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. B. P. Todi, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondents. Dr. Saraf submits that as per provisions of law the petitioner is entitled to get the refund of tax-paid in excess, to which Dr. Todi does not dispute. However, Dr. Todi submits that sanction of State Government is necessary and the State Government is a party here. It is the duty of the State Government or the respondents to dispose of the matter when an application has been filed praying for refund of tax-paid in excess, however, for the reasons best known to them the matter has been kept pending for a long period. Law cannot countenance to this state of affairs. In view of the above, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the matter, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dr. Saraf further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to receive interest for the delay in refunding the amount paid in excess. The authority shall decide whether the petitioner is entitled to receive interest as per provision of law and if he is entitled, the authority shall pay the interest also. Dr. Saraf further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to receive interest for the delay in refunding the amount paid in excess. The authority shall decide whether the petitioner is entitled to receive interest as per provision of law and if he is entitled, the authority shall pay the interest also. With the above observation the petition is disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.