2010 PTD 449

KHALID NASEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).--- This judgment disposes of appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal 449/2007, dated 27-11-2007 passed by the Collector Customs, Sales Tax & Federal Excise (Appeals), Faisalabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during scrutiny of refund claim for the tax period 07/06 filed by Messrs Habib Haseeb Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad it was observed that the appellants did not file refund claim along with supporting documents within sixty days of the filing of refund under Rules 28(1) of S.R.O. 555(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006. Thus, the refund claim filed by the appellants was time barred which was liable for rejection in terms of sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Rule 28(1) of the aforesaid Sales Tax Act, 2006. Based on the aforesaid irregularity/omission, Messrs Habib Haseeb Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad were charged with violation of sections 7, 8, 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Sales Tax Rules, 2006 and were called upon to show cause as to why input tax refund claimed may not be rejected under sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and why penal action may not be taken against them under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Adjudication proceedings culminated in passing of an Order-in-Original No.297-476/2007 dated 25-8-2007 for rejection of refund claim under sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the Act ibid. Being aggrieved of the said order the registered person filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Faisalabad who vide Order-in-Appeal No.449/2007 dated 27-11-2007 upheld the Order-in-Original. Feeling dis-satisfied and aggrieved of the said order, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal praying to set aside the orders of the lower forums.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that only issue involved is filing of supporting documents late by 38 days for the tax period July, 2006 and cited the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 64 wherein it has been decided to discourage withholding of citizen's money by a public functionary on the plea of limitation or on any other technical plea if it was not legally payable by him. He also referred to the judgments of this Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed refund by accepting the appeal based on the above judgment. The departmental representative accepted the position and also the arguments of the learned, counsel that in similar cases the refund has been allowed in many cases by the department and by the Collector (Appeals), therefore the plea of the appellant is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside.

4. The appeal stands disposed of as above.

C.M.A./182/Tax(Trib.) Appeal accepted.