Continuing jurisdiction to correct erroneous tax reimbursement orders under section 4-A upheld, with challenge to jurisdiction rejected.

The assessing authority's power to grant tax reimbursement under section 4-A was construed as continuing and not exhausted after the first exercise, so an earlier refund order could be examined again if found to have been wrongly granted. The availability of reopening, rectification or supervisory revision did not exclude the authority's own power to correct an erroneous reimbursement order, and the General Clauses Act supported repeated exercise of the conferred power where the earlier order had not been displaced by appeal or revision. The impugned proceedings were therefore within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to recall or revise its earlier order granting reimbursement of tax under section 4-A, and whether the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not indicate that the power under section 4-A, once exercised, became exhausted so as to prevent the assessing authority from examining an earlier reimbursement order again when it was found to have been wrongly granted. The existence of other remedies such as reopening, rectification, or supervisory revision did not exclude the assessing authority's own ability to correct an erroneous refund order. The power under the General Clauses Act to exercise a conferred power from time to time supported this construction, and the absence of any time-limit for refund applications under the relevant provision reinforced it. The Court also noted that a repeated exercise of the power would not be impermissible so long as the earlier order had not already been displaced by appeal or revision.

Conclusion: The assessing authority had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the challenge on jurisdiction failed.

---