JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The petitioner is the proprietrix of Little Flower Oil Mills, Angamaly. It is a registered small-scale industrial unit. According to the petitioner, the unit was set up in pursuance of the notification dated April 11, 1979 issued by the Government of Kerala. The unit was set up before October 21, 1980. According to the petitioner, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills case [1987] 65 STC 1 the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax including surcharge for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of production. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of tax and surcharge for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. But the assessing authority completed the assessment for the aforesaid years assessing the petitioner to tax. The appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 were dismissed by the first appellate authority. In second appeal by the petitioner the Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter to the assessing authority for disposal, with the observation that if the appellant is able to produce necessary evidences to substantiate her contention that the business was set up on any date between April 11, 1979 and October 21, 1980, she should not be denied the exemptions promised as per notification dated April 11, 1979, merely because the date of commencement of business was shown as April 1, 1981 in the application for sales tax registration. The Tribunal's order is evidenced by exhibit PI. Pursuant to the Tribunal's order the first respondent assessing authority revised the assessment orders for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 evidenced by exhibits P2 to P4. The first respondent held that the petitioner was qualified for full tax exemption for a period of 5 years from the date of production, that is from April 13, 1981. Accordingly, the assessment for the year 1981-82 was recorded as a case of nil demand. It is stated that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 32,380 towards tax and Rs. 2,360 towards surcharge and the first respondent adjusted Rs. 15,298 towards surcharge due for 1986-87 from the tax paid and Rs. 1,020 towards surcharge due for 1986-87 from the surcharge paid and ordered refund of Rs. 17,082 towards tax and Rs. 1,340 towards surcharge. It is stated that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 32,380 towards tax and Rs. 2,360 towards surcharge and the first respondent adjusted Rs. 15,298 towards surcharge due for 1986-87 from the tax paid and Rs. 1,020 towards surcharge due for 1986-87 from the surcharge paid and ordered refund of Rs. 17,082 towards tax and Rs. 1,340 towards surcharge. Similarly by the revised assessment orders for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 refund of tax and surcharge paid was ordered. According to the petitioner the tax paid came to Rs. 58,116 and surcharge came to Rs. 2,641. 2. The assessment orders for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were set aside by the first appellate authority by a common order dated May 9, 1989, Exhibit P5, holding that the petitioner is fully qualified for exemption in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Pournami Oil Mills' case [1987] 65 STC 1. The first respondent-assessing authority gave effect to the appellate order and passed revised assessment orders dated April 25, 1990 evidenced by exhibits P6 and P7. As per the said orders also refund was ordered to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 orders the petitioner is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 4,29,207 by way of refund. Exhibits P2 to P4 orders are dated April 17, 1990 and exhibits P6 and P7 are dated April 25, 1990. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 orders passed as early as April 17, 1990 and April 25, 1990 no refund was given to the petitioner till date. It is stated that the second respondent filed appeals, exhibits P8 and P9, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam. The appellate orders were communicated to the department on July 15, 1989. The point taken is that "the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have found that the business is set up after October 21, 1980 on the basis of evidence available in the assessment record for the period 1981-82 and therefore not entitled for exemption on the basis of Pournami Oil Mills case [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC). The point taken is that "the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have found that the business is set up after October 21, 1980 on the basis of evidence available in the assessment record for the period 1981-82 and therefore not entitled for exemption on the basis of Pournami Oil Mills case [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC). In this context the petitioner has stated that the department did not question the revised assessment orders passed by the first respondent for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84, wherein it was found by the assessing authority himself that the petitioner had set up the industry before October 21, 1980. 3. The petitioner has filed this original petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to refund to the petitioner the amounts ordered to be refunded as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of those orders. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein it is stated that though refund was ordered for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86, the orders for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 were revised by the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam in exercise of his power under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated October 15, 1993 annulled the orders passed by the assessing authority. It is further stated that the petitioner preferred appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam against the said order as T.A. Nos. 867, 868 and 869 of 1993 and the Tribunal disposed of the said appeals by order dated May 30, 1995 restoring the orders passed by the assessing authority. It is stated that this order was communicated to the first respondent on February 26, 1996 and that the petitioner has not disclosed these developments in the original petition nor has he chosen to file additional affidavit in this Court to disclose these subsequent developments which are well within his knowledge. It is also stated that all these developments occurred subsequent to exhibits P1 to P4 orders. It is stated that the claim for refund with interest in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-1984 simply on the basis of exhibits P2 to P4 is untenable. It is also stated that all these developments occurred subsequent to exhibits P1 to P4 orders. It is stated that the claim for refund with interest in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-1984 simply on the basis of exhibits P2 to P4 is untenable. It is also stated that the petitioner made a request for refund of the amount only on July 8, 1996 after the disposal of the case by the Tribunal evidenced by exhibit R1(b) and that the first respondent has taken necessary steps immediately to refund the amounts for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. It is further stated that the amounts for the aforesaid two years will be paid within one month. Regarding the refund for the year 1981-82, it is stated that steps will be completed within three months. The reasons stated for the same is that the assessment records are presently misplaced and urgent steps are taken to find out the same. Regarding the assessments for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 it is stated that against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowing claim of the petitioner, the department took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal as T.A. Nos. 233 and 234 of 1991 along with an application for condonation of delay and the Tribunal subsequently dismissed the appeals on November 19, 1996. It is stated that urgent steps will be taken for refund of the amounts payable to the petitioner including the amounts payable to her for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Regarding the claim for interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of exhibits P2 to P4 orders it is stated that the claim is unsustainable. The amount became due to the assessee only in pursuance of exhibit R1(a) and that too after the expiry of 90 days therefrom for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 and for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 after the expiry of 90 days from November 19, 1996, at the rate of 6 per cent in view of section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 5. Sri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner admittedly is entitled to get refund of the amount ordered as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 orders for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86. 5. Sri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner admittedly is entitled to get refund of the amount ordered as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 orders for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86. Learned counsel submitted that the only dispute in this case is regarding the period for which interest is due and the rate of interest. Learned counsel submitted that in exhibit P1 order itself the Tribunal has decided the question regarding the eligibility of exemption and that the first respondent-assessing authority had considered the claim as ordered by the Tribunal and held that the petitioner is entitled to exemption pleaded and also ordered refund of the excess tax paid evidenced by exhibits P2 to P4. Though the said orders were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers vested under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated May 30, 1995 cancelled the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored exhibits P2, P3 and P4 revised orders passed by the first respondent. Similarly against the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner exhibit P5 passed for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 holding that the petitioner is entitled to exemption pleaded the department took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal as T.A. Nos. 233 and 234 of 1991 and the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on November 19, 1996. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the only question to be decided is as to the period from which the petitioner is entitled to refund. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to get refund from the date of exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7, which are orders passed by the first respondent giving effect to exhibits PI and P5 appellate orders of the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. As per section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, when an assessing authority finds, at the time of final assessment, that the dealer has paid tax in excess of what is due from him, it shall refund the excess to the dealer. It also provides that when the assessing authority receives an order from any appellate or revisional authority to make refund of tax or penalty paid by a dealer it shall effect the refund. It also provides that when the assessing authority receives an order from any appellate or revisional authority to make refund of tax or penalty paid by a dealer it shall effect the refund. Sub-section (3) of section 44 provides that the assessing authority shall have power to adjust the amount due to be refunded under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), towards the recovery of any amount due, on the date of adjustment, from the dealer. Sub-section (4) thereof provides that in case refund under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or adjustment under sub-section (3) is not made within ninety days of the date of final assessment or, as the case may be, within ninety days of the date of receipt of the order in appeal or revision or the date of expiry of the time for preferring appeal or revision, the dealer shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due to him from the date of expiry of the said period up to the date of payment or adjustment. 6. Petitioner has paid tax for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86 pursuant to the original assessment orders and as a result of exhibits P2 to P4, P6 and P7 revised orders passed in pursuance of the orders of the appellate authorities the tax thus paid has become refundable as is evident from the revised orders. Even after proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner, the revised order exhibits P2 to P4, P6 and P7 were restored as a result of the order of the Tribunal. Since the amounts are due to the petitioner by way of excess tax paid, as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 the petitioner has become entitled to get the amount from the dates of the revised orders. Though certain amounts have been adjusted as mentioned earlier in this judgment no further payments were made pursuant to exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7. Since the amounts remained unpaid the petitioner has become entitled to get interest on the said amounts on the expiry of three months from the date of exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 at the rate of 6 per cent from that date as provided under section 44 of the Act. Since the amounts remained unpaid the petitioner has become entitled to get interest on the said amounts on the expiry of three months from the date of exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 at the rate of 6 per cent from that date as provided under section 44 of the Act. The fact that the revised orders or the appellate order based on which the revised orders were passed were taken in further proceedings and ultimately resulted in restoring the revised orders will not absolve the respondent from paying interest for the period during which further proceedings for the assessment years in question were pending. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Shyam Electricals v. State of Kerala 1994 KLJ TC 233 for claiming a higher rate of interest than what is provided under section 44 of the Act, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot get the said benefit in this case for the entire period. 7. In this case the revised assessment orders passed by the assessing authority were the subject-matter of the proceedings under section 35 of the Act or appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, though all those proceeding ultimately resulted in the restoration of the revised orders, exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 orders. Taking into account the said proceedings taken at the instance of the department, I am of the view that the petitioner's case cannot be treated as similar to the case in the reported decision mentioned above. However, the petitioner can be granted interest at the rate of 10 per cent for the period after the expiry of three months from the date of the Tribunal's orders dated May 30, 1995 for 1981-82 to 1983-84 and from July 29, 1996 for the other years. In this context it is relevant to note that the rate of interest under section 44 of the Act has been raised from 6 per cent to 10 per cent by the Finance Bill, 1996 with effect from July 29, 1996. In this context it is relevant to note that the rate of interest under section 44 of the Act has been raised from 6 per cent to 10 per cent by the Finance Bill, 1996 with effect from July 29, 1996. It is for the reasons that there is delay on the part of the respondents in not granting refund even after the Tribunal's decisions mentioned above and taking into account the enhanced rate of interest that I have held that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent from August 30, 1995 on the refund amount due for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 and from July 29, 1996 for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent-assessing authority to refund the amount due to the petitioner as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 revised assessment orders after deducting adjustments made from the above towards the dues for any other years, if any, made and also to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent as provided under section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the period from July 17, 1990 up to August 29, 1995 and thereafter at the rate of 10 per cent till the date of payment for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 and at the rate of 6 per cent for the period from July 25, 1990 up to July 28, 1996 and thereafter at the rate of 10 per cent till the date of payment of the amount for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 as provided under the amended section 44 of the Act. There will also be a direction to the first respondent to pay the amount expeditiously. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.