The assessee, a bank, paid fringe benefits tax in respect of contribution to an approved pension fund. The Tribunal had held for assessment year 2006-07 that fringe benefits tax was not payable on such contribution. The assessee thereupon filed an application for revision under section 264 . The application was rejected on the ground of delay. On a writ the Court held that  S. 264 was c not applicable. But section 119 could have been invoked. The authority ought to have posed only one question to himself, i. e., whether the assessee was liable to pay the tax in question or not. If he was not liable to pay the tax in question, the Department had no business to retain it even if it was wrongly paid. It is well-settled that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. The Income-tax Department represents the sovereign power of the State in matters of taxation. Whether the Department had illegally collected the tax from the citizen or whether the assessee mistakenly paid the tax to the Department, the consequence is one and the same. If the assessee had mistakenly paid, it is a case of illegal retention by the Department It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that if the authority otherwise had the jurisdiction, mere non-quoting or misquoting of the provision will not vitiate the proceedings. The respondent, the Principal Commissioner was directed to pass orders afresh under section 119  of the Act .  (AY. 2007 -08)