Manual refund filings cannot be rejected for lack of electronic submission; provisional refund must follow when the claim remains undecided.

Where the governing refund procedure permits manual filing, a refund application cannot be rejected solely for not being filed electronically, particularly where the court had already granted liberty to file it manually; the rejection was therefore unsustainable. Where the refund claim remained undecided despite repeated directions, the statutory mechanism for provisional refund under Rule 91 had to be applied, and provisional refund was directed to be paid. The refund process was required to continue on the basis of manual filing and statutory provisional refund, with further compliance and explanation sought from the concerned officials.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund application could be rejected merely because it was filed manually and not electronically, despite Rule 97A and the Court's earlier liberty to file a manual application; (ii) Whether provisional refund under Rule 91 had to be released when no definite decision had been taken on the refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether a refund application could be rejected merely because it was filed manually and not electronically, despite Rule 97A and the Court's earlier liberty to file a manual application.

Analysis: Rule 97A permits manual filing and processing where the prescribed process refers to electronic filing on the common portal. The rejection order ignored that provision and also overlooked the Court's earlier direction granting liberty to file the refund application manually. A refund application could not, therefore, be refused solely on the ground that it was not filed electronically.

Conclusion: The rejection of the manual refund application was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether provisional refund under Rule 91 had to be released when no definite decision had been taken on the refund claim.

Analysis: The refund claim remained undecided despite repeated directions of the Court. In such circumstances, the statutory mechanism for provisional refund applied, and the failure to issue any provisional refund amounted to non-compliance with the Court's directions.

Conclusion: Provisional refund was directed to be paid to the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The refund process was required to proceed on the basis of manual filing and statutory provisional refund, and the matter was kept alive for further compliance and explanation by the concerned officials.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rules permit manual filing, a refund application cannot be rejected solely for not being filed electronically, and where final refund remains undecided, provisional refund must be processed in accordance with the statutory scheme.

---