JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, Acting C.J. 1. Petitioner calls in question legality of order dated 4.1.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Sales-tax, Orissa rejecting its prayer for grant of interest on the refund granted to it. Rejection was made on the ground that it was premature keeping in view the fact that reference application u/s 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') was pending for disposal. The order was quoted by the Sales-tax Officer, Rourkela, Uditnagar and communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 5.1.1999 (Annexure-1). 2. The case has a chequered career inasmuch as the question of petitioner's entitlement to interest has been subject-matter of controversy in different Courts. Lastly in OJC No. 8873 of 1998, this Court had occasion to examine the prayer of the petitioner. In that case the Sales-tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, Uditnagar had rejected the petitioner's prayer on the ground that since the Revenue's reference applications u/s 24(1) of the Act were pending, the application was premature. Legality of the action was not examined because by the time the writ application was disposed of an application for reference u/s 24(1) of the Act had been rejected. Order of the Sales-tax Officer rejecting the prayer for grant of refund was set aside and the authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh keeping in view the orders dated 8.3.1989 and 17,2.1998 passed by the apex Court. 3. As indicated above, impugned order dated 4.1.1999 of the Commissioner of Sales-tax, Orissa has been communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 5.1.1999 of the Sales-tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, Uditnagar. In the said letter it was indicated that the Commissioner was of the view that as the State had filed reference application u/s 24(2)(b) of the Act before the Court on 18.12.1998, determination of tax liability has not attained the finality and therefore, the prayer was rejected. 4. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the orders, of the apex Court have been misconstrued. Orders of the apex Court are clear and reading of the orders as done by the Revenue is clearly malicious and mala fide. By way of illustration it is stated that supposing the application u/s 24(2) of the Act was rejected and prayer for refund is made, payment of interest would be avoided maliciously by stating that matter does not get finality till decided by the apex Court. By way of illustration it is stated that supposing the application u/s 24(2) of the Act was rejected and prayer for refund is made, payment of interest would be avoided maliciously by stating that matter does not get finality till decided by the apex Court. The learned counsel for Revenue pointed out that finality is attached only when an order u/s 24(5) of the Act is passed by the Tribunal. Reference in this context is made to the decision of this Court in Superintending Engineer, Operation, Electricity Department and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, . 5. A few relevant facts are, to be noted for disposal of the writ application, and for that purpose the orders dated 8.3.1989 and 17.2.1998 passed by this Court need to be quoted. They read as follows : "8.3.1989. ..........In the event of the tax liability being sustained, it shall be recoverable with interest at the rate of 12%. Similarly in the event of the demand being set aside the amount collected shall be refunded with 12% interest from the date of payment till actual refund." "17.2.1998. ........by the expression 'in the event of tax liability being sustained' and the expression 'in the event of the demand being set aside' in the order dated March 8, 1989 it was directed that interest would be payable in the event of tax liability being ultimately sustained or being ultimately set aside."... 6. Great emphasis is laid on the word 'ultimately' by the Revenue. It is seen that the stand of the Revenue before the apex Court in its prayer for clarification was that order dated 8.8.1989 was confined to the disposal of the first appeal which was pending on the date of passing of the order. 7. u/s 14 of the Act there cannot be any direction for refund or waiver of interest when there is an order for re-assessment. But in the instant case that question has no relevance because the question of grant of interest is in compliance of the orders of the apex Court. The plea that the order gets finality only when an order in terms of Section 24(5) of the Act is passed, is not what this Court said in (supra). The fact situation in the said case was clearly different and the conclusions were arrived at in a different context. The plea that the order gets finality only when an order in terms of Section 24(5) of the Act is passed, is not what this Court said in (supra). The fact situation in the said case was clearly different and the conclusions were arrived at in a different context. The starting point of dispute related to limitation for the purpose of making application for grant of refund. In that context, this Court observed that the date can be computed from the date of passing of the order u/s 24(5) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows : "24. Statement of case to High Court - (1) to (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) The High Court upon the hearing of any such case, shall decide the question of law raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Tribunal a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar, and the Tribunal shall dispose of the case accordingly." 8. The scheme as provided u/s 24 of the Act is that an application for reference can be made by either the assessee or the Revenue if a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Where the Tribunal refuses to make such reference while acting u/s 24(1) of the Act, the aggrieved party can move the High Court in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act. Two, courses are open to the concerned party after disposal of the matter by the Tribunal u/s 24 (1). The application can be withdrawn and in such event fee paid shall be refunded. Alternatively it can move the High Court against the refusal. If the High Court is satisfied that the refusal was not justified, it may require the Tribunal to state a case and refer it to the High Court and on receipt of requisition the Tribunal shall state and refer the case. In case the High Court is not satisfied that the statement in a case referred to it are sufficient to enable it to determine the question raised thereby, it may refer the case back to the Tribunal to make such additions thereto or alteration therein as the Court may direct in that behalf. In case the High Court is not satisfied that the statement in a case referred to it are sufficient to enable it to determine the question raised thereby, it may refer the case back to the Tribunal to make such additions thereto or alteration therein as the Court may direct in that behalf. Finally the High Court decides the question of law raised before it and delivers a judgment thereon containing the grounds on which the decision is founded. Copy of the judgment is sent to the Tribunal under the seal of the Court and signature of the Registrar, and the Tribunal shall dispose of the case in the light of the decision rendered by the High Court. The Tribunal does not take fresh decision while acting u/s 24(5) of the Act. It only refers the facts for decision of the High Court to be rendered under the reference jurisdiction. After the decision of the High Court is received it gives effect to it. It does not take a fresh decision. Obviously the High Court does not act as Court of Appeal, and only acts in an advisory jurisdiction. Therefore, the stand taken by the Revenue that finality is attached only when the Tribunal passes order u/s 24(5) of the Act is not correct. Only the case is disposed of by the Tribunal in the light of the decision rendered by the High Court in an application u/s 24(2) of the Act. Suppose in a given case, matter is taken to the apex Court, obviously the order passed by the apex Court has to be given effect to, even though there is nothing in Section 24(5) of the Act. At this juncture it is required to take note of Section 14 of the Act to which reference has been made earlier. It deals with refund. The first proviso is of significance. It provides that no claim to refund of any tax, penalty or interest paid under the Act shall be allowed unless it is made within twenty-four months from the date on which the order of assessment or order imposing penalty, as the case may be, was passed or from the date of the final order passed on appeal, revision or reference in respect of the order earlier mentioned, whichever period is later. It is to be noted that the applications filed by the Revenue u/s 24(2) of the Act have been dismissed in SJC Nos. 138 to 146 of 1998 by judgment dated 7.9.1999. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for Revenue that refund in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal has been granted to the petitioner. The question is only relatable to interest on the refunded amount. In the background highlighted above, the action of the Revenue in refusing to grant interest on the refunded amount on the ground that no finality had been arrived at does not stand to logic. If the matter has not reached finality, as stated by the Revenue, it is not explained under what circumstances the refund was granted on the basis of Tribunal's order. 9. Grant of interest is intricately linked with the amount of refund. Therefore, in terms of the apex Court's orders dated 8.3.1989 and 17.2.1998, the interest has to be granted to petitioner. Learned counsel for Revenue submitted that in case the Revenue subsequently succeeds, recovery of the amount of interest may be difficult. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that refund has been granted to the petitioner on the basis of the Tribunal's order unconditionally. In the circumstances, we direct the opposite parties go grant interest as payable on the refunded amount within one month from today. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. P.K. Misra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed