Appeal allowed for tax refund despite deposit in different jurisdiction. Order set aside, case remanded for fresh decision.

The appeal was allowed through remand as the Member found the appellant entitled to the tax refund despite the deposit being made in a different jurisdiction. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, taking into account the Chief Accounts Officer's letter confirming the refund's validity.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on jurisdiction of deposit location.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,81,370. The appellant contended that they are entitled to the tax refund, with the only dispute being the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The appellant had deposited the tax in a jurisdiction different from the one where the authority resided. The advocate highlighted a letter from the Addl. Accounts Officer supporting the refund claim. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the authority's decision to reject the claim due to the deposit being made in a different jurisdiction.

Upon review, the Member found that the appellant was indeed entitled to the tax refund. The location of the tax deposit, not falling under the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction, should not be a reason for denial. A letter from the Chief Accounts Officer confirmed the refund's validity, suggesting any clarifications could be sought from their office. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, considering the Chief Accounts Officer's letter. The appeal was allowed through remand, with the order being pronounced in open court on 30-11-2007.

---