Refund claim filing through departmental routing can satisfy presentation requirements when addressed to the proper authority and processed by the office.

A refund application addressed to the proper authority was treated as validly filed even though it was physically presented before the Superintendent, because the departmental office received, retained, and processed it as part of the customary routing for such claims. The Tribunal emphasised that procedural filing requirements should not defeat a substantive refund claim where the papers reached the Assistant Collector through the established office channel and departmental practice supported that mode of presentation. On those facts, the claim was held to be within time and not barred by limitation, with consequential relief following from the valid filing.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector but filed before the Superintendent could be treated as a valid filing before the proper officer and, on the facts, as filed within time.

Analysis: The governing procedural requirement was that refund claims be lodged before the proper officer. The Tribunal noted that earlier authority emphasised strict observance of the prescribed procedure, but later Tribunal decisions recognised that where the claim was addressed to the Assistant Collector, the Superintendent retained and scrutinised the papers, and departmental practice had allowed such filing, the presentation through the Superintendent could be treated as filing before the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal also relied on the view that a claim filed before an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction is not automatically void if departmental action is taken on it, and that the Superintendent's office formed part of the Assistant Collector's establishment for this purpose.

Conclusion: The refund claims were to be treated as validly filed before the Assistant Collector and not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the refund claims were held entitled to consequential relief on the basis that the procedural mode of filing did not defeat the substantive claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund application is addressed to the proper authority and is received, retained, and processed by the departmental office through which such claims were customarily routed, filing through the Superintendent can satisfy the statutory requirement of presentation to the Assistant Collector.

---