Refund limitation runs from original filing before the wrong authority when the claim is later redirected to the proper forum.

A refund claim first presented before the wrong authority and later refiled before the competent authority was held not to be time-barred merely because the proper filing occurred after the normal limitation period. The operative date for limitation was the original presentation before the authority lacking jurisdiction, since the claim had been returned only for presentation to the correct authority. An earlier Tribunal ruling on identical facts was followed, and that principle was applied in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the date of presentation of a refund claim before a wrong authority can be treated as the date of filing for computing limitation, and whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The refund claim was initially filed before an authority lacking jurisdiction and was returned with a direction to present it before the proper authority. The subsequent filing before the competent authority occurred after the normal period of limitation. The decisive question was whether, in such circumstances, the original presentation could be taken as the relevant date for limitation. The earlier Tribunal decision on identical facts held that where a refund claim is first presented before the wrong authority and later refiled before the proper authority, the original date of filing must be adopted for limitation purposes. That reasoning was applied as squarely governing the present dispute.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred merely because it was refiled before the proper authority after the prescribed period; the original presentation date was treated as the operative date for limitation, in favour of the assessee.

---