ORDER RAM MOHAN REDDY :- The petitioner - firm has a manufacturing unit at Nagaland and a branch office at Bangalore amongst other places in the State, carrying on business for over 15 years, secures goods by way of stock transfer from its manufacture unit to its branches strictly in accordance with law. That a particular transfer of manufactured goods, by road, when intercepted, the check-post officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,18,150 which when questioned in an appeal before the second respondent - Joint Commissioner, was set-aside by order dated March 17, 2009, annexure A. Thus, the petitioner entitled in law to a refund of Rs. 2,18,150 illegally levied, got issued, through its the learned counsel legal notices dated April 24, 2009 and May 27, 2009, annexures B and B1 requesting the first respondent - Commissioner to refund the said sum without any delay. The first respondent having shown indolence in not responding to the letters, has impelled the petitioner to present this petition, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction for a mandamus to the first respondent to refund the amount with interest, within a fortnight and with appropriate and heavy costs. Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections. The learned Government counsel submits that though a written reply was not made to annexures B and B1 by the Commissioner, nevertheless the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax by name Puttegowda is said to have addressed a letter dated June 8, 2009 to the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Enforcement, to expedite action as the advocate is likely to sue the office and confirmed the telephonic conversation had with the said officer. In turn the said officer addressed a letter dated June 25, 2009, to the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Intelligence and Co-ordination, stating that the records in the petitioner's case have been forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I on June 18, 2009 to take up suo motu proceedings and that further action would be taken after receipt of the report from the said officer. It may be that the respondent did initiate suo motu revision proceedings against the order of the Commissioner - second respondent. The allegation of the petitioner, at a very threshold, is failure of the Commissioner - first respondent to respond to the petitioner's legal notices. It may be that the respondent did initiate suo motu revision proceedings against the order of the Commissioner - second respondent. The allegation of the petitioner, at a very threshold, is failure of the Commissioner - first respondent to respond to the petitioner's legal notices. In the scheme of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, the first respondent is obliged to answer the reasonable request of the assessees and failure to do so would amount to dereliction of duties. Even if the first respondent did initiate action, there is no reason not to respond to the petitioner's legal notices. Before this court, there is not even a plausible explanation as to the first respondent's failure to reply to the reasonable request of the petitioner, as animated in the legal notices, annexures B and B1. The officers appear to have made inter office communication directing the authority to initiate suo motu revision against the order of the Joint Commissioner, which is not the answer to the controversy brought before this court. In my opinion, the conduct of the first respondent speaks volumes of the nature of business carried on as the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The failure to respond to the petitioner's request is a serious matter, since it is the duty of the Commissioner to be proactive and answer all reasonable requests made to him. In the circumstances, although a writ in the nature sought for by the petitioner is not permissible since under the Act the authorities are required to take action in accordance with law, nevertheless the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition. The writ petition is allowed in part and a direction is issued to the first respondent to either comply with the order of the Joint Commissioner, the second respondent and refund the amount within a week from today or initiate such action as is permissible, in accordance with law over the said order. Costs are quantified at Rs. 5,000, payable by the Department and to be recovered from the salary of the first respondent.