Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a refund or rebate application addressed to the Assistant Collector but presented to the Inspector or Sector Officer could be treated as filed within time for the purpose of limitation under the refund provisions.
Analysis: The application was addressed to the proper authority, and the Sector Officer did not merely receive it passively but took steps on it and corresponded with the claimant before forwarding it to the Assistant Collector. The decision follows the Tribunal's earlier view, and the Kerala High Court later answered similar questions by holding that, where the Superintendent was authorised to receive and transmit the application consistent with the prevailing practice, the date of presentation to him would be the relevant date. On those facts, the later receipt in the Assistant Collector's office was held to be of no consequence.
Conclusion: The refund or rebate claim was held to be within time, so the objection based on limitation failed.
Final Conclusion: No question of law survived for reference, and the departmental reference stood dismissed, leaving the assessee entitled to the benefit of the refund claim if otherwise admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund application is addressed to the competent authority and is received and acted upon by an authorised departmental officer in the course of the prevailing practice, presentation to that officer may be treated as presentation to the proper authority for limitation purposes.