ORDER BILAL NAZKI J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he has been held entitled to refund of amounts totalling to Rs. 21,45,648, but the amounts are not being paid. Counter has been filed. On March 26, 2007 this court passed an order, which is reproduced below : "The respondent shall furnish the list of the officers who handled this matter from March 25, 1998. It is conceded by the respondent that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 21,45,648. It is also conceded in the counter-affidavit that orders in the appeal were passed on March 25, 1998, but refund order was not passed by the authorities till July 18, 2003. It took the officers more than 5 years to pass the consequential order of refund although orders in the appeal have been passed in March, 1998. Even after a formal order of refund was passed on July 18, 2003, the amounts have not been refunded till date. Under the provisions of law, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. It is not fair to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent to the petitioner from the funds of the State on the ground of negligence of the officers. However, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the interest, he is entitled to in accordance with law. The statutory rate of interest is 12 per cent. Therefore, the list of the officers who handled the matter needed to be perused, so that this court could examine the possibility of fastening the liability of interest on the officers, who are responsible for not refunding the amount. This list be furnished within one week." An affidavit has been filed by the Commercial Tax Officer showing the names of five persons, who have handled the matter from 1996 till date. Since the respondent does not dispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 21,45,648 and the amount had become due to him on March 25, 1998 therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the amount at the rate of 12 per cent. Since the respondent does not dispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 21,45,648 and the amount had become due to him on March 25, 1998 therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the amount at the rate of 12 per cent. The rate of interest at 12 per cent is too excessive in the present commercial context, but the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 provides for payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent. Therefore, this court would not be in a position to modify this rate of interest. But, this court feels that without any reason the amounts were not refunded to the petitioner from March 25, 1998. Refund order was made in this case finally on July 18, 2003. Almost four years have passed even from the date when the regular refund order was passed on July 18, 2003. Even then the amounts were not refunded. Now the question is should the Government be asked to pay the interest at a very high rate, i.e., at 12 per cent to the petitioner or the officers concerned who did not refund the money should be asked to pay the interest to the petitioner. This is an important question, because State funds cannot be allowed to be spent as a result of negligence of the officers. Since the officers concerned are not before us and we also feel that it will not be appropriate for us to fix the responsibility of these officers, therefore, while allowing the refund to the petitioner of Rs. 21,45,648 in accordance with Rules and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent, we also direct the Chief Secretary of the State to hold an enquiry by himself or by any other officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to go into the whole question and fix the liability of the officers concerned, if any, and recover the amounts of interest from them. This will be important as this may not be the only case in which the refunds are not paid in time and any orders by the Chief Secretary and the Government in this connection would serve a purpose beyond this case. The Registrar (Judicial) of this court shall be informed by the Chief Secretary about the results in the matter within six months. The Registrar (Judicial) of this court shall be informed by the Chief Secretary about the results in the matter within six months. We are told that the refund has already been made, but an amount of Rs. 1,67,000 has been withheld for which some particulars have been sought by the officers from the assessee. We hope that this issue shall also be resolved within a week. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.