ORDER
A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is in Appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay dated 24-2-1994 by which Collector (Appeals) had reversed the order of the Asstt. Collector disallowing recredit of an amount of Rs. 7,28,195.72 in the respondent’s RG 23A Part II Account by them on 13-5-1991. Along with the Appeal, the Department had also filed a condonation of delay application for condoning a delay of six days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal. The Collector has stated that since the matter was a complicated one which had to be referred to the Principal Collector, there was delay in obtaining directions from the Principal Collector in the matter and hence the delay. After considering the explanation given for the delay, we condone the same and allow the COD Application.
2. As regards the merits of the case, Shri Sumit Das, Id. DR submits that the issue relates to the recrediting of certain amount suo motu by the respondents on 13-5-1991 despite the condition laid down in the Asstt. Collector’s letter dated 9-8-1990 sanctioning their refund claim that a further order will be passed regarding recrediting of the amount. By suo motu taking the recredit of Rs. 7,28,195.72 in their RG 23A Part II without waiting for a formal order from the Asstt. Collector, the respondents had acted without authority and the recredit taken was not authorised by law. Ld. DR specifically referred to the last paragraph of the letter dated 9-8-1990 sent by the Asstt. Collector to the respondents. In the last paragraph of the letter, the Asstt. Collector had clearly stated that the orders for recredit admissible in RG 23A Part II in respect of refund claim of Rs. 7,28,195.72 will be issued in due course. Inasmuch as the appellants have not waited for the said order envisaged under the letter, the recredit of the amount was without authority of law and therefore, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing the same may be set aside.
3. Shri Padamkar, Id. Advocate who appeared for the respondent, submitted that it was very clear from the Asstt. Collector’s letter of 9-8-1990 that the appellant’s refund claim had been sanctioned after consideration of all the aspects by the Asstt. Collector. Further, though the said letter was issued on 9-8-1990, the respondents were in touch with the Asstt. Collector for issue of formal order relating to recredit of the amount of Rs. 7,28,195.72. They had also sent a letter to the Asstt. Collector on 6-5-1991 seeking permission to recredit the amount in their RG 23A Part II account. Since no such letter was forthcoming from the Asstt. Collector, the respondents had recredited the amount since their refund claim had already been sanctioned by the Asstt. Collector as per his letter of 9-8-1990. In view of their refund claim having already been sanctioned in their favour, the requirement, if any, of a formal letter from the Asstt. Collector again permitting them to recredit the amount was, if at all a mere formality and non-issue of any such letter would not amount to a bar to their recrediting the amount and therefore, the order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing the said recredit could not be assailed.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the letter dated 9-8-1990 no doubt states that the refund claim of the respondents have been sanctioned after scrutiny. However, the Asstt. Collector had in the last paragraph of the letter stated as under :
“However, the orders for recredit admissible in RG 23A Ft. II in respect of refund claim of Rs. 7,28,195.72 will be issued in due course”.
In view of the clear statement that separate orders will be issued for recredit, we are unable to accept the Id. Counsel’s argument that since the Asstt. Collector has already sanctioned the refund claim, the further condition put by him in the aforesaid paragraph did not make their action of recrediting the amount in any way illegal. Ld. Counsel contended that legally their refund claim has been sanctioned and only an administrative step of issuing a further order for recrediting the amount was to be issued by the Asstt. Collector. We are of the view that it is a well settled principle of construing any legal document that it has to be construed in its totality and no part of such document can be treated as of no consequence. From a perusal of the letter under consideration, we observe that the Asstt. Commissioner had put a clear condition of the issue of a further order for permitting recredit of the aforesaid amount though he had sanctioned the amount in principle. Inasmuch as the condition envisaged in the said letter by way of issuance of a formal order by the Asstt. Collector permitting re-credit has not been issued, we find that the respondents’ action in their taking the recredit suo motu without waiting for the order is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Departmental Appeal is accordingly allowed.
5. Ld. Counsel had mentioned that this matter has been pending for a long time and the appropriate directions may be given to the authorities below to take expeditious steps in the matter. We find that the refund claim is relating to the period March, 1988 to February, 1989. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, we direct the Asstt. Collector to issue necessary orders in the matter at an early date in accordance with law.