9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , vide endorsement on the same application, passed an order sanctioning refund and also made endorsements for issuance of a cheque for the amount sanctioned as refund based on which, the cheque was drawn. All these orders and drawal of the cheque were on 5-4-1990. The said cheque was sent to the party under covering letter dated 6-4-1990 mentioning that the referred claim was sanctioned. It may be observed that though the claim was for refund of Rs. 57,821.21, the refund sanctioned was for Rs. 52,694.01. Subsequently however, the same Assistant Collector passed yet another order dated 22-8-1990 also sanctioning the said refund claim for the said amount. The order earlier passed was on the specified proforma, whereas the subsequent order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that there is a requirement of pre-audit before sanction and accordingly, correspondence was going on. He refers to the letter dated 4-8-1989 from the concerned Assistant Collector to Assistant Collector (Audit) and the counter reply dated 16-8-1989. In his submission, the refund claims could not have been sanctioned unless cleared from the Audit Section and with no audit clearances given, the order dated 5-4-1990 could not be a legal and valid order. He also refers to the letter from Assistant Collector (Audit) dated 17-7-1990 requiring the concerned Assistant Collector to pass a speaking order and pursuant thereto order dated 22-8-1990 has been passed and as such only that order has the legal sanction and period of one year has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itute or replacement to the order initially passed. At the best it would be the supplement to the original order dated 5-4-1990. 9. The said order dated 5-4-1990, which has been followed by actual issuance of the cheque, has therefore to be taken as the effective order and period specified in Section 35E(3) has to be computed from that date only. 10. Obviously the order under Section 35E(2) has been passed after expiry of one year. The date of order and not the date of communication has to be taken as the relevant date and when review order is passed after expiry of one year, the approach of the Collector (Appeals) in holding the appeal as barred by limitation appears to be correct. 11. The appeal from the Department is therefore reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
