Jurisdictional defect in refund rejection led to remand for fresh decision by the competent authority.

A refund rejection was invalid because it was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, although the governing circular reserved refund claims above the relevant monetary threshold to the Special Commissioner. The court held that an order made by an officer lacking prescribed jurisdiction could not be sustained, and the refund dispute had to be reconsidered afresh by the competent authority. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with expeditious disposal directed in view of the delay and the age of the refund periods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund rejection order was liable to be set aside on the ground that it was passed by an officer not competent to decide the refund claim, and whether the matter required fresh decision by the competent authority.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, while the governing administrative circular placed refund claims above the specified monetary threshold within the domain of the Special Commissioner. Since the authority who passed the impugned order was not the competent officer, the rejection could not be sustained. The delay in the dispute and the age of the refund periods also warranted an expeditious reconsideration by the proper authority.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law within the time directed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of invalidating the impugned refund rejection and securing a fresh decision by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting a refund claim is unsustainable if it is passed by an officer lacking the prescribed jurisdiction, and such a matter must be decided afresh by the competent authority.

---