Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012, is arbitrary and illegal, as he had rejected the claim for refund made by the petitioner, by filing form 'W', manually. In fact, there is no Rule or Regulation prohibiting the filing of form 'W', seeking the claim for refund, manually. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012, may be set aside and the first respondent may be directed to consider the form 'W', filed by the petitioner, manually, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. Even though the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had pointed out that the Circular bearing No.22/2011, dated 20.10.2011, issued by the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, makes it clear that the refund claims filed, manually, on or after 1.1.2012, would not be processed, he is not in a position to show that such a ban is supported by a Rule or Regulation. 4. As it is clear that the Circular, dated 20.10.2011, issued by the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, cannot abridge or overrule the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012. Hence, it is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the form 'W' refund claim filed by the petitioner, manually, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.