ORDER D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J. - Writ petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It appears that the petitioner had filed Form VAT-170 indicating that certain capital goods had been purchased on January 27, 2006 relevant for the accounting period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 and has sought for rebate for the amount of value added tax paid on the purchase of the capital goods. In this background, it appears, the petitioner had addressed a communication dated September 19, 2008 that necessary follow-up action has been taken by filing Form 40 in respect of the transaction. It appears the petitioner had further addressed a communication dated December 31, 2008 to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) to adjust the rebate amount against other tax liabilities of the petitioner. Complaint of the petitioner is that such a request has not been acceded to. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Mr. Shashidharan, learned counsel, is that the business turnover of the petitioner is not commensurate to avail of the entire rebate and therefore the petitioner is entitled for refund of difference of the amount and in the alternative he submits that the petitioner should at least be allowed to avail of the rebate amount against other tax liability. The respondents having not done so, the petitioner has sought for refund of the amount. That also being not acceded to, the petitioner is compelled to come up with the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs : "(a) kindly issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs or orders/directions in the nature of writ to second respondent to release the refund of value added tax paid to the extent of Rs. 2,68,750 as rebate allowable as per the KVAT Act, 2003, for capital addition; and (b) grant any other relief by issuing appropriate writs or orders or directions in the nature of writs as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the interest on the above amount and also cost of this petition." If the petitioner had purchased certain capital goods and the payment of tax on the purchase of the capital goods, if allowed as refund to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to claim such rebate. It is also open to the petitioner to claim rebate in any manner as permitted in law. Unless the petitioner has followed up the claim for rebate and in a manner permitted by law and has demonstrated that the amount if not fully utilised, can it result in refund; there is no way of issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents to compel them to refund the amount. In the first instance there is no quantification of refund of amount as claimed by the petitioner in any manner known to law or by any authority. An exercise of this nature will not be undertaken in a petition under articles 226 and 227 to the Constitution. It is only after ascertaining the definite amount, if the petitioner is so entitled in law, a writ of mandamus for refund or return of that amount can be issued and not otherwise. Therefore, while writ of mandamus as sought for is declined, it is open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the authorities as permitted in law and seek such reliefs as are available to him in law. Writ petition dismissed.