Rebate claim on merits must be considered when earlier rejection was only on limitation; refusal to decide was non-exercise of jurisdiction.

A claim for rebate that had not been finally decided on merits could not be treated as barred merely because an earlier appellate rejection rested on limitation. The Assistant Collector was required to apply his mind to the representation and determine the rebate claim on merits; refusal to do so amounted to non-exercise of jurisdiction. In writ jurisdiction, such a refusal was unsustainable, and the appropriate course was a mandamus directing fresh consideration of the representation and decision on the substantive claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector was justified in refusing to decide the petitioner's claim for rebate on merits and in declining fresh consideration of the representation.

Analysis: The claim for rebate had not been finally adjudicated on merits, and the earlier appellate rejection was only on limitation. The Assistant Collector was bound to apply his mind to the representation and decide the dispute, rather than treat the earlier rejection as precluding consideration. A refusal to exercise that decision-making power amounted to non-exercise of jurisdiction and justified interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The refusal to consider the representation afresh was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to mandamus directing reconsideration on merits.

---