Refund limitation may be satisfied by filing through the Superintendent if departmental practice accepted it for the Assistant Collector.

A refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector and filed through the jurisdictional Superintendent may satisfy the limitation requirement under Section 11B if the assessee proves that, in the relevant collectorate practice, such presentation was accepted as filing before the proper authority. The majority treated departmental working practice as relevant to whether the statutory filing form was effectively complied with, and rejected payment under protest as an independent answer to limitation. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of whether the prevailing Madras Collectorate practice existed at the relevant time; if proved, the claim would be treated as within time and reconsidered on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector but filed through the jurisdictional Superintendent could be treated as presented in time for the purpose of limitation under Section 11B, and whether the matter required remand for verification of prevailing collectorate practice.

Analysis: The refund application was admittedly addressed to the Assistant Collector and presented through the Superintendent within the statutory period. The decision turned on whether, in the prevailing administrative practice of the concerned collectorate, presentation to the Superintendent was accepted as presentation to the Assistant Collector for limitation purposes. The majority held that the strict statutory form could be read with the actual working practice of the department where the Superintendent functioned as part of the Assistant Collector's organisational set-up and, if the assessee established that such a practice existed in the Madras Collectorate at the relevant time, the claim could not be rejected as time-barred merely because it first reached the Superintendent. The plea that the payment had been made under protest was not accepted as a sufficient independent basis to avoid limitation.

Conclusion: The appeal was not finally decided on merits of refund entitlement; the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on limitation after giving the assessee an opportunity to prove the existence of the relevant collectorate practice, and if such practice is proved, the refund claim would be treated as within time.

Final Conclusion: The controlling question of limitation was left open for factual determination by the Assistant Collector, and the refund claim was directed to be reconsidered on merits if the claim is found to have been validly presented within time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund application is addressed to the proper authority and is shown, by established departmental practice, to have been receivable through the jurisdictional Superintendent on behalf of the Assistant Collector, presentation to the Superintendent may satisfy the statutory filing requirement for limitation purposes.

---