JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the arbitrary action of the opposite parties in not granting refund of tax demand arising out of the first appellate order. FACTS 2. The unfolded story of the petitioner is that petitioner is a registered dealer under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter called “OVAT Act”) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called “CST Act”). It carries on business in manufacturing and sale of aluminum ingots, carbon electrode paste, aluminum sheets etc. During the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 the petitioner had effected sales against declaration in Form ’C’ to the tune of Rs.404,91,16,679/-. Similarly, petitioner had made branch transfer and consignment sale for an amount of Rs.1608,86,12,150/-and effected sales to SEZ to the tune of Rs.18,20,241/-. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur II Circle, Sambalpur being the Assessing Officer made assessment illegally by not awarding sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce balance declaration Form ‘C’ and ‘F’ to the tune of Rs.4,69,57,870/-and Rs.85,59,51,925/-respectively. Also the Assessing Officer did not allow time for producing certificate in Form-I in respect of sales made to SEZ. Accordingly, on 19.1.2013 the learned Assessing Officer made assessment order and directed to make demand of Rs.3,74,26,551/-upon the petitioner to pay. 4. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the First Appellate Authority. After hearing the appeal the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) passed order by allowing the appeal in part and made the demand by reducing the same to Rs.99,851/-to be paid by the petitioner. This order was passed on 10.11.2014. Against the order of the First Appellate Authority the Revenue filed Second Appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. In the meantime the petitioner requested the opposite party No.1 to refund of tax as demand has been reduced to Rs.99,851/-against the deposit of Rs.74,85,310/-during pendency of appeal by the petitioner. 5. It is also stated by the petitioner that the opposite party No.1 is obliged to grant refund within sixty days from the receipt of the appellate order under Section 57 of the OVAT Act with interest accrued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 59 of the OVAT Act. 5. It is also stated by the petitioner that the opposite party No.1 is obliged to grant refund within sixty days from the receipt of the appellate order under Section 57 of the OVAT Act with interest accrued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 59 of the OVAT Act. Instead of refund of such tax, it is alleged, inter alia, that the opposite party No.2 issued notice on 7.11.2015 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the refund as granted by the First Appellate Authority would not be withheld under Section 60 of the OVAT Act when the revenue has preferred Second Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Against initiation of proceeding under Section 60 of the OVAT Act the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 6. Per contra, the opposite parties have filed the counter affidavit stating that during assessment proceeding the petitioner failed to file the ‘C’ Form, ‘F’ Form and ‘I’ Form in respect of respective sales. But before the First Appellate Authority the dealer filed ‘C’ Form, ‘F’ Form and ‘I’ Form to the tune of Rs.20,43,334.00, Rs.88,45,36,836.00 and Rs.18,10,241.00, respectively. At the same time, the petitioner failed to file ‘C’ Forms for Rs.14,40,453.00 and 17,76,049.00 before the First Appellate Authority. But the tax component of the said transactions was not covered by ‘C’ Form and ‘F’ Form for which the learned First Appellate Authority reduced the same to Rs.99,851.00. It is also stated in the counter that no interest or penalty was levied on the tax by the First Appellate Authority for which the Revenue filed the Second Appeal on 31.1.2015. 7. It is also stated by the opposite parties that the provision of Section 60 (1) of the OVAT Act has been complied since notice has been issued on 7.11.2015 with intimation to petitioner of having an opportunity of hearing on 7.12.2015 and to show as to why the refund shall not be withheld on the ground that State has filed the Second Appeal before the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner has no ground to file the present petition claiming refund before disposal of Second Appeal. It is submitted to reject the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS 8. The petitioner has no ground to file the present petition claiming refund before disposal of Second Appeal. It is submitted to reject the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 57 of the OVAT Act clearly enshrines that refund of tax demand arising out of appellate order should be refunded within sixty days of receipt of the order. He also contended that not only the tax but also interest and penalty or both if paid by the dealer should be refunded to the assessee. According to him the opposite parties have erred in law by not following Section 57 of the OVAT Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the provision of Section 60 (1) of the OVAT Act has not been followed by the opposite parties in this case and there is no finding in the notice issued by the opposite parties that the pre-conditions of Section 60 (1) of the OVAT Act have been complied resulting issuance of notice to withhold the refund. According to him mere filing of Second Appeal is not enough ground to withhold the demand of tax deposited by the petitioner. Mere sending notice is not enough to show the compliance of natural justice and the opposite parties have failed to observe to pass the speaking order before issuance of notice. So, he submitted issuance of notice is illegal, arbitrary for which the same should be set aside and the refund of demand of tax with interest should be allowed to be paid to the petitioner. Petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court passed in M/s. Unit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack and others (W.P.(C) No.13723 of 2014) and prays to allow the writ petition accordingly. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for Revenue submitted that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file the writ inasmuch as the petitioner has been given opportunity while it is proposed by the opposite parties to withhold the refund of tax claimed by the petitioner. Section 60 (1) does not direct for issue of a notice while refusing refund of demand of tax. But the opposite parties have taken extra care to issue notice so that the petitioner can submit before the opposite parties and claim the refund on the grounds submitted by petitioner. Section 60 (1) does not direct for issue of a notice while refusing refund of demand of tax. But the opposite parties have taken extra care to issue notice so that the petitioner can submit before the opposite parties and claim the refund on the grounds submitted by petitioner. It is also submitted that Section 57 of the OVAT Act has to be only complied on the application made by the petitioner and in the fact and circumstances of the case even if the petitioner has claimed the refund but due to filing of the Second Appeal and there is every possibility of winning the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the refund has been held up. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ application as there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties in compliance of the provisions of law and natural justice. 11. Points for consideration:- The main points for consideration of the case are - (i) Whether the provisions of the OVAT Act have been complied by the opposite parties. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs asked for. DISCUSSIONS POINT NO.(i) : 12. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was assessed by the Assessing Officer for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 and the Assessing Officer has passed order for a demand of Rs.3,74,26,551/-. It is also not disputed that against the assessment order the First Appellate Authority reduced the demand to Rs.99,251/-on the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner had deposited the entire demand amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer and has claimed refund of same after adjusting the reduced amount. But the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued notice by proposing to withhold the refund to pay. 13. Section 57 (1) of the OVAT Act speaks as follows:- “57. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner had deposited the entire demand amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer and has claimed refund of same after adjusting the reduced amount. But the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued notice by proposing to withhold the refund to pay. 13. Section 57 (1) of the OVAT Act speaks as follows:- “57. Refund.- (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act and the rules, the assessing authority shall refund to a dealer, within a period of sixty days of the date of receipt of such order giving rise to such refund, the amount of tax, including interest or penalty or both, if any, paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him, through refund adjustment or through refund voucher: Provided that the assessing authority shall first adjust such excess amount towards the recovery of any amount due in respect of which a notice under sub-section (4) of Section 50 has been issued, or any amount due for any period covered by a return but not paid and, thereafter, refund only the balance, if any.” The aforesaid provision clearly spells out that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to make refund within a period of sixty days from the date of the order directing to refund the demand of tax including the interest and penalty or both after adjusting the demand of tax. In the present case admittedly he has deposited the entire demand and the First Appellate Authority vide Annexure-2 has directed that the demand is reduced to Rs.99,851.00 and rest of the amount be refunded to the petitioner. In the present case such action on the part of the Assessing Officer has not been exhibited. 14. Section 60 of the OVAT Act is quoted below for better appreciation:- 60. Power to withhold refund in certain cases.- (1) Where any order giving rise to a refund is the subject matter of an appeal or further proceeding, or where any other proceeding under this Act is pending, and the Commissioner is of the opinion that the grant of such refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue and that it may not be possible to recover the amount later, the Commissioner may withhold the refund till the final order is passed in such appeal or proceeding. (2) Where a refund is withheld under sub-section (1), the dealer shall be entitled to interest as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 59, if he becomes entitled to the refund as a result of the appeal or further proceeding or, as the case may be, any other proceeding, under this Act.” The above provision makes it clear that Section 60 has ample power with the opposite parties to withhold refund in certain cases. What are the conditions precedents to withhold the refund has been well described by this Court in the decision reported in the case of M/s. Unit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa & others where Their Lordships observed at para-7:- “7. A bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the OVAT Act would go to show that for exercising power of withholding refund, the following three conditions are to be satisfied. (i) The order giving rise to the refund is the subject matter of an appeal or further proceeding; and (ii) The Commissioner is of the opinion that grant of such refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue; and (iii) It may not be possible to recover the amount later.” With no disagreement with the aforesaid view it has to be found whether the said provision has been complied or not. By going through the materials on record it is found that the First Appellate Authority has passed the order of demand of tax by reducing the demand. Moreover, in this case the Commissioner has not recorded his opinion that such refund is likely to affect the revenue or it is not possible to recover the amount later. Instead the opposite party No.2 issued a notice in the following form:- OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ODISHA, CUTTACK Letter No.15954/CT Dated 7.11.2015 E File No.II (II) 26/2015 To M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Hirakud, Sambalpur, Tin-21601703134 Take notice that it is proposed to withhold sanction of refund u/s 60 (1) of the OVAT Act of Rs.73,85,459.00 flowing from Appeal order No.AA-106/SAII/CST/12-13, Dated 10.11.2014 on the ground that the State has preferred second appeal against the appeal order passed by the DCST (Appeal), Sambalpur Range, Sambalpur giving rise to the refund under consideration. You are therefore, directed to appear before the undersigned on 27.11.2015 at 11.00 A.m. in his office chamber at Banijyakar Bhawan, Old Secretariat Compound, Cantonment Road, Cuttack and explain as to why the refund so granted by the 1st appellate authority will not be withheld as per provision of section 60 (1) of the OVAT Act. You may produce the documents and records on which you may rely in support of your arguments. In the event of failure on your part to appear in person or by your authorized representative, on the date specified in this notice, the matter will be decided on merit. Sd/- Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha, Cuttack.” In the aforesaid notice it is clear that the learned Commissioner of Sales Tax has proposed to withhold the refund on the plea that the appeal is pending before the Second Appellate Authority and the refund is the subject matter of appeal. Even the ground has been spelt out it has to be seen whether by such notice the natural justice has been complied by the Assessing Officer who is undoubtedly a quasi-judicial authority. 15. It is reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 (S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India) where Third Lordships observed at para-35:- “35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. xxx xxx What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge”. 16. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge”. 16. It is also reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 482 (LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and others) where Their Lordships observed at para-23:- “23. Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or any act that gives rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element (sic that) becomes open to challenge. If it is shown that the exercise of the power is arbitrary, unjust and unfair, it should be no answer for the State, its instrumentality, public authority or person whose acts have the insignia of public element to say that their actions are in the field of private law and they are free to prescribe any conditions or limitations in their actions as private citizens, simplicitor, do in the field of private law. Its actions must be based on some rational and relevant principles. It must not be guided by irrational or irrelevant considerations. Every administrative decision must be hedged by reasons.” 17. It is also reported in (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 194 (Basudeo Tiwary v. SIDO Kanhu University and others) where Their Lordships observed at para-10:- “10. In order to impose procedural safeguards, this Court has read the requirement of natural justice in many situations when the statute is silent on this point. The approach of this Court in this regard is that omission to impose the hearing requirement in the statute under which the impugned action is being taken does not exclude hearing -it may be implied from the nature of the power -particularly when the right of a party is affected adversely. The justification for reading such a requirement is that the Court merely supplies omission of the legislature (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 ). The justification for reading such a requirement is that the Court merely supplies omission of the legislature (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 ). From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that every decision either judicial or quasi-judicial must be supported by reasons because by every decision the right of a party is affected adversely. Moreover, for procedural safeguards the requirement of natural justice in many situations has to be complied with when statute is silent on this point. Natural justice is said to have been complied if a person concern is given opportunity of being heard. By virtue of such awarding natural justice the administrative authority excludes the chances of arbitrariness and ensures degree of fairness in the process of decision making. When such is the principle, it has to be scrutinized whether in the present case awarding of natural justice has been observed or not. 18. Now adverting to the fact of the case it is found from the notice that the learned Commissioner of Sales Tax has proposed to withhold the refund but no decision has been taken to withhold the refund although Section 57 of the Act clearly awards right to the petitioner to get refund from the Assessing Officer within sixty days of the order of the Appellate Court. 19. Since the aforesaid notice was issued by the opposite parties to the petitioner asking him to appear in person for hearing of the matter on payment of the refund or withholding the same and there is no decision taken to withhold the refund except a proposal from the side of the Commissioner, it cannot be said that natural justice has been violated and the order to withhold the refund has been finally passed by the opposite parties. It is true that Section 57 of the OVAT Act has been abridged as the Assessing Officer has not performed his duty for no payment of the refund within sixty days from the date of receiving of the order of the Appellate Court but the refund which has to be paid under Section 60, has been proposed to be withheld for the reasons stated. The show cause notice issued vide Annexure-8 can be termed as a stage before decision taken under Section 60 of the Act and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 60 of the OVAT Act has remained as non-compliance. Thus, the point No.(i) is answered accordingly. POINT NO.(ii) : 20. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to grant refund of the tax as per the statement of calculation vide Annexure-7 with statutory interest and after quashing the notice dated 7.11.2015 issued vide Annexure-8. Since the notice dated 7.11.2015 has been issued and no order of withholding the refund has been passed, it is not justified to quash the notice. Since under Section 60 the opposite parties have got power to withhold the refund subject to the circumstances as enumerated therein and the Commissioner of Sales Tax has requested the petitioner to come up for hearing, it is too early to say that Section 60 of the Act has been complied. So, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are premature for which it is for the petitioner to obtain opportunity of personal hearing and claim refund with interest from the opposite parties. The point No.(ii) is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 21. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that Section 57 of the OVAT Act has been violated but the violation of Section 60 is yet to be found out. When there is notice to show cause issued to a proposal to withhold the refund but there is no order of withholding refund, the natural justice cannot be said to have been violated. We, therefore, in the fact and circumstances of the case direct the petitioner to attend the personal hearing before the learned Commissioner of Sales Tax on 6.6.2016 at 11.00 A.M. and the opposite party No.2 would pass order either to withhold the refund or payment of refund within two weeks from that date according to law and with the parameters as observed in the aforesaid paragraphs. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. I. Mahanty, J. : I agree.