- (1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad, the third respondent, to refund the alleged excess amount of sales tax said to have been realised by the ordnance factory from the petitioner in respect of the sales made by the third respondent to the petitioner. It is asserted that the position that the rate of tax in respect of scrap is 4 per cent has been accepted even by the Assistant Commissioner, Finance to the Government of India vide annexure 9 to the petition. Yet the ordnance factory has realised sales tax from the petitioner at the rate of 8. 8 per cent. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in these proceedings. Assuming without deciding that the Ordnance factory realised sales tax from the petitioner in excess of the tax legally leviable on such sales, the position is that under section 29-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the party realising sales tax in excess of the amount leviable in law is bound to deposit the excess amount in the Government treasury and under sub-section (3) of the same provision it is open to any person who claims to have paid excess sales tax to make an application for the refund of the amount realised in excess and the State Government is liable to make the refund subject to the condition laid down under section 29-A of the Act. In view of these provisions we cannot direct the third respondent to refund the alleged excess of tax realised from the petitioner to the petitioner directly. The Scheme of the Act is disclosed by section 29-A is that the excess amount of sales tax realised by any dealer has to be deposited in Government treasury and therefore the person from whom such excess was realised by the dealer is entitled to claim the refund by making appropriate application under sub-section (3) of section 29-A. We cannot hence issue a direction which will have the effect of defeating the provisions of law, viz. , section 29-A. The petition is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make it clear that we should not be taken to have expressed any concluded opinion on the question whether the amount of sales tax paid by the petitioner to the third respondent was in excess of the sales tax chargeable on the commodity purchased by the petitioner from the respondent. Writ petition dismissed. .;