Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a dealer, registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the assessment year 1993-94, the petitioner had effected works contracts, relating to central air conditioning plants, in the State of Tamil Nadu. In order to execute such works contracts, the petitioner had effected inter-state purchase of various goods and materials, from the vendors, who are located outside the State of Tamil Nadu. As such, the works contracts entered into, by the petitioner, had involved inter-state movement of goods. The petitioner had collected the appropriate tax from its customers and had filed the returns and paid the tax, under Section 3(B) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had taken the stand that the goods and materials sourced from the vendors, located outside the state of Tamil Nadu, and utilised in the execution of the works contracts inside the State of Tamil Nadu, could not be brought to tax, in view of the deduction available for such amounts, under Section 3 (B)(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in BUILDERS ASSOCIATOIN OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1973 STC 370). Accordingly, the refund of an amount of Rs.60,91,483/-, paid as tax, which included the tax, surcharge and additional surcharge, had been claimed by the petitioner. However, by an order of assessment, dated 13.3.2000, relating to the assessment year 1993-94, the Assessing Authority had rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. It has been further stated that, aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner had preferred a first appeal, in A.P.No.87 of 2000. By a final order, dated 4.4.2003, received by the petitioner, on 9.5.2003, the First Appellate Authority had accepted the claim of the petitioner and had held that the petitioner was entitled to the deduction, under Section 3(B)(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 6. By a final order, dated 4.4.2003, received by the petitioner, on 9.5.2003, the First Appellate Authority had accepted the claim of the petitioner and had held that the petitioner was entitled to the deduction, under Section 3(B)(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 6. It has been further stated that the First Appellate Authority had also directed the Assessing Authority to grant the necessary relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.60,91,483/-was liable to be refunded to the petitioner. Since, the order of the First Appellate Authority, dated 4.4.2003, had not been challenged, the said order had become final. 7. It has been further stated that, when the petitioner was entitled to the refund of Rs.60,91,483/-, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 28.12.2011, treating the sum of Rs.62,99,409/-, as excess collection of tax. Accordingly, he had imposed the penalty on the petitioner, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and had held that the said amount had been forfeited by the petitioner. 8. It had been further stated that, out of the amount of Rs.62,99,409/-, a sum of Rs.60,91,483/- relates to the amount directed to be refunded by the First Appellate Authority, by its order, dated 4.4.2003, made in A.P.No.87 of 2000. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the above writ petitions to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 28.12.2011, imposing the penalty of Rs.60,91,483/-, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and for a further direction to refund the said amount to the petitioner. 9. In the common counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions had been denied. 10. It has been stated that the excess amounts of tax, amounting to Rs.60,91,483/-, collected by the petitioner, had been recovered, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The excess amounts of tax collected by the petitioner, from its customers, cannot be retained by the petitioner, as such retention would amount to undue enrichment. 11. It has been further stated that it is the excess amounts of tax collected by the assessee, apart from the taxes levied, amounting to Rs.2,74,16,483/-, had been recovered from the petitioner, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 11. It has been further stated that it is the excess amounts of tax collected by the assessee, apart from the taxes levied, amounting to Rs.2,74,16,483/-, had been recovered from the petitioner, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. No other amounts had been recovered from the petitioner, as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 12. It has been further stated that the Department did not file any appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appeals, Chennai, dated 4.4.2003, made in A.P.No.87 of 2000. 13. It has been further stated that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order, dated 28.12.2011, passed by the Assessing Authority, it could have filed an appeal, on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Instead, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petitions, before this Court, challenging the order, dated 28.12.2011, without availing the alternative appellate remedy, as provided under the said Act. As such, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are liable to be dismissed. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the respondent, dated 28.12.2011, suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order had been passed by the respondent without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. 15. It has been further stated that the omission of the Assessing Authority to follow the binding directions of the First Appellate Authority is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent, who is the subordinate authority, ought to have refunded the amount of Rs.60,91,483/-, to the petitioner, as per the directions of the First Appellate Authority, by his order, dated 4.4.2003. Further, the imposition of a penalty against the petitioner, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is opposed to the binding decision of this Court, in STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. SAKTHI SUGAR LIMITED (137 STC 218). 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 28.12.2011, passed by the respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. 17. SAKTHI SUGAR LIMITED (137 STC 218). 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 28.12.2011, passed by the respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. 17. It is noted that the order of the First Appellate Authority, dated 4.4.2003, made in the first appeal, in A.P.No.87 of 2000, had become final, as the said order had not been challenged by the respondent Department. While so, it is not open to the respondents to pass the impugned order, dated 28.12.2011, imposing a penalty, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, stating that the petitioner had forfeited the amount of Rs.60,91,483/-, which should have been refunded to the petitioner, as per the order of the First Appellate Authority, dated 4.4.2003. 18. The amount of Rs.60,91,483/-, said to have been collected by the petitioner, as the excess amounts of tax, cannot be held to be undue enrichment by the petitioner, after the said amount had been paid to the state Government and in view of the fact that an order, dated 4.4.2003, had been passed by the First Appellate Authority, in A.P.No.87 of 2000, directing the refund of the said amount to the petitioner. Further, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. SAKTHI SUGAR LIMITED (137 STC 218), relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 28.12.2011, and the amount of Rs.60,91,483/-, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner, by the respondent, without any interest thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.