Refund claim for excess entry tax must be reconsidered on merits with a speaking order and personal hearing.

The High Court held that a refund application for excess entry tax had to be reconsidered on merits after the earlier rejection was quashed and the matter remitted, and the respondent's failure to act within the time granted could not justify non-compliance with that direction. The pendency of proceedings on the validity of the entry tax legislation was held irrelevant because the petitioner was not challenging the statute itself, but seeking refund of tax allegedly paid from its own funds. The petitioner was entitled to a speaking order after being given a personal hearing, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the claim in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh consideration of its application for refund of excess entry tax and a reasoned order on merits after the earlier rejection had been set aside.

Analysis: The earlier rejection had already been quashed and the matter had been remitted for fresh consideration, but the respondent failed to pass any order within the time granted. The pendency of proceedings relating to the validity of the entry tax legislation was not relevant because the petitioner did not challenge the statute itself and sought only refund of excess tax allegedly paid from its own funds. The Court found that the reasons recorded in the written instructions could not justify non-compliance with the earlier direction, and that the petitioner was entitled to a speaking order after being afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeds to the extent that the respondent was directed to reconsider the refund application on merits, in accordance with law, after granting personal hearing.

---