SINGH, J. - (1.) FROM the counter-affidavit filed in the case it appears that after the reference application under section 11(1) was rejected by the Judge (Revisions), the assessee made an application for withdrawing the reference and also requested for refund of the amount of fee. This application was allowed and an order was passed for refund. Counsel for the assessee urged that as the assessee has not taken back the amount, the present application under section 11(4) is maintainable. We are unable to accept this contention. The revising authority had passed an order for refund. The mere fact that the assessee thereafter did not collect the money will not take the case outside the purview of section 11(2) of the Act, as the revising authority had passed the appropriate order. The assessee cannot defeat the result of the withdrawal application and the refund order by not collecting the amount directed to be refunded. Counsel for the assessee, however, contended that even though the application for reference may have been withdrawn, the assessee has a right to ask for a reference under section 11(4) of the Act. This argument is misconceived. The application under section 11(4) of the Act can be made only in case a reference application is subsisting. The right to apply to the High Court for a reference under section 11(4) points that reference application is on the record of the revising authority. Once the reference application has been withdrawn, the occasion for applying to the High Court under section 11(4) does not arise as the reference proceeding do not survive after a reference application has been withdrawn. In view of this conclusion, the application under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is rejected. Costs on parties. Application rejected.;