Competent authority requirement defeats reference application where filing by an unauthorised officer renders it not maintainable.

A reference application filed within sixty days of receipt of the Tribunal's order was nevertheless not maintainable because it was lodged by an Assistant Commissioner instead of the Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner lacked power to authorise filing of the reference application, and that defect went to maintainability. As the application was not filed by the competent statutory authority, the Tribunal declined to entertain the reference and rejected it without examining the proposed questions on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application was maintainable, and whether it had been validly filed within time by a competent officer.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the order of the Tribunal had been received by the department on 27-3-1996 and that the reference application had been filed within sixty days from the date of receipt. It further held that the application had been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, whereas a reference application had to be filed by the Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had no power to authorise filing of the reference application, and this defect went to maintainability.

Conclusion: The reference application was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the reference on the ground of lack of authority in filing it, without adjudicating the proposed questions on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference application must be filed by the competent authority prescribed by law, and filing by an unauthorised officer renders it not maintainable.

---