The present petition is premature for the reasons that the petitioner has assailed the notice. The notice could be interfered with only on two grounds namely if there is any violation of rules in issuing notice or if notice is issued by an incompetent authority.

Having heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that the kind of issues raised in the writ application cannot be adjudicated by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are disputed questions of facts and this Court would not make any Endeavour to go into the same. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek his remedy in accordance with the law.

It is ordered that the Director-cum-CEO, BSMCL shall refund the security deposit to the petitioner within Patna High Court CWJC No.111 of 2023 dt.02-05-2023 19/19 a period of three months.

Then necessarily he has to state the tax payable as per the returns in the column of the amount of final demand and the amount of refund claimed, which could definitely be deciphered from the Patna High Court CWJC No.15860 of 2021 dt.01-05-2023 5/5 returns itself, which also has the provisions to indicate the tax paid.

In case the petitioner chooses not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing any appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act before the Tribunal within the period which may be specified upon the constitution of the Tribunal, the respondent- Authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with the law.