JUDGMENT By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner had business transaction with one private limited company-- Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO), now Tata Motors. 3. The writ petitioner's contention is that under a policy, he was entitled to exemption from payment of purchase tax. However, the TELCO recovered the purchase tax from the writ petitioner and deposited it with Commercial Taxes Department of the then State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was entitled to get the refund from the Commercial Taxes Department itself as the TELCO deposited Rs. 13,12,227/- in the account of the writ petitioner with the Commercial Taxes Department. But the Commercial Taxes Department refused to refund the said amount to the writ petitioner and directed that the petitioner may recover it from the TELCO itself. The TELCO, in turn, refused to return the total amount of Rs. 13,12,227/- and disputed the claim of the writ petitioner and after filing of this writ petition, offered a cheque of Rs. 2,59,492/-, which was accepted by the writ petitioner under protest. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commercial Taxes Department took a stand that though the amount has been deposited with the Department but petitioner may get that amount from TELCO. 4. In view of above reasons, it is clear that the dispute is with respect to even initial claim of the writ petitioner, as has been disputed by the respondent-TELCO by admitting the claim of the writ petitioner to the extent of Rs. 2,59,492/- only and not to the extent of Rs. 13,12,277/-. 5. Learned counsel for the TELCO disputed the stand of the writ petitioner and submitted that in fact the petitioner was not entitled to get any claim against the TELCO in any manner. 6. Therefore, in view of these facts, if the TELCO has wrongfully recovered any amount from the writ petitioner under assumption that it is tax liability of the writ petitioner, then writ petitioner if entitled, may recover the amount from the TELCO and he should have availed the remedy by filing a suit. In view of above reasons, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.