Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The above writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 64, 540 being the amount deducted by M/s W. S. Insulators of India Ltd. and paid to the IT Department out of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner together with interest at 15 per cent per annum thereon from the date of deduction till the date of refund. Though the main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to grant refund of the tax, the sum and substance of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the CBDT, i.e., the fifth respondent. The ITO, by his letter dated 3rd December, 1990, intimated the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner on 18th December, 1989, under s. 119(2)(b) of the IT Act before the CBDT has been rejected by the Board for the asst. yr. 1985-86. The communication by the ITO, headquarters, Madras, to the petitioner does not disclose the reason given by the Board for the rejection of the petition filed under s. 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. This Court, in R. Seshammal vs. ITO held as follows: "This is hardly the manner in which the State is expected to deal with the citizens, who in their anxiety to comply with all the requirements of the Act pay monies as advance tax to the State, even though the monies were not actually required to be paid by them and, thereafter, seek refund of the monies so paid by mistake after the proceedings under the Act are dropped by the authorities concerned. The State is not entitled to plead the hypertechnical plea of limitation in such a situation to avoid return of the amounts. Sec. 119 of the Act vests ample power in the Board to render justice in such a situation. The Board has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner's request for refund." I am of the view that the CBDT officer should pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner and the order should be a reasoned order. Hence, the order dated 3rd December, 1990, communicated by the ITO is quashed. The Board has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner's request for refund." I am of the view that the CBDT officer should pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner and the order should be a reasoned order. Hence, the order dated 3rd December, 1990, communicated by the ITO is quashed. The result is that the matter is remitted to the CBDT, New Delhi, for fresh consideration of the earlier matter after giving personal opportunity to the petitioner. Since the matter is pending from 1990, the fifth respondent is directed to pass order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The fifth respondent is also directed to take into account, the decision of this Court in Seshammal vs. ITO's case (supra), and also its own Circulars No. 670, dated 26th October, 1993 [reported in 1993 (115) CTR(St) 13 : 1993 204 ITR(St) 154] or any other matter which may be brought to its attention at the time of passing of the order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.