JUDGMENT JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Dave, learned AGP waives notice of Rule. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 3. The short facts appears to be that in respect of the assessment year of 2007-2008, provisional refund to the extent of 90% of the amount of Rs.9,37,141/- was made on 15.10.2008. The balance of the unpaid refund was 10% being Rs.1,04,118/-. The petitioner did not apply for the disbursement of the balance amount expecting that the refund will be received by him in due course. However, as no refund was disbursed which was left out, on 19.01.2014, the petitioner applied for refund. He also sent reminder. Vide communication dated 15.10.2014, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the refund should not be denied. The petitioner maintained the demand by filing objection. However, on 30.10.2014, the respondent denied refund on the ground that the time limit is over. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr. Manish Kaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dave, learned AGP for the respondent. 5. As such, when the refund to the extent of 90% was already made as a provisional refund and 10% was to be refunded at the later stage, there is no question of expiry of the period of the assessment as sought to be canvassed. In normal circumstances, as per section 38 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, the refund is required to be made with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. However, Mr. Kaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner under the instruction of his client declared before the Court that if the petitioner is permitted to adjust the amount payable by way of refund of Rs.1,04,118/towards future tax liability, his client would not claim for interest and the same would satisfy his client. 6. Mr. Dave, learned AGP, under the instructions of Mr. D.B. Vaishnav, Commercial Tax Officer, Junagadh, on behalf of the respondent, states that if the relief is granted to the extent of adjustment towards future tax liability, the same would not be against the interest of the revenue since the interest on the refund is waived by the petitioner. 7. We would have examined the matter further. D.B. Vaishnav, Commercial Tax Officer, Junagadh, on behalf of the respondent, states that if the relief is granted to the extent of adjustment towards future tax liability, the same would not be against the interest of the revenue since the interest on the refund is waived by the petitioner. 7. We would have examined the matter further. However, we find that in view of the aforesaid declaration made by the petitioner himself, the matter can be put to rest, but suffice it to observe that once the refund in part is made, the refund for the balance amount is required to be made and there is no question of applying limitation as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondent. 8. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,04,118/- by way of adjustment towards future tax liability as and when the assessment for the present year is finalised or the liability for tax arises even in subsequent year. In view of the declaration made by the petitioner, the interest is not awarded. 9. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly.