' This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order in Appeal No,713/LB/2007, passed by the Collector, Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Appeals), Faisalabad, on the 31st of December, 2007, whereby he, accepting the respondent's first appeal brought against the Order- in-Original No,193 of 2007, recorded by the Assistant Collector Sales Tax and Excise, Faisalabad, on the 8th of August, 2007, allowed the respondent to apply for filing of refund claim under the provisions of S.R.O. No,1204(I)/2007, dated the 11th of December, 2007, to the Appellant-Department.
2. The brief facts of the case in hand are that the respondent-registered person claimed refund of sales tax amounting to Rs,10,01,305, incurred in connection with zero rated supplies whereupon it was issued a show-cause notice on the 10th of February, 2007, by the Assistant Collector, Faisalabad, as to why its refund claim may not be rejected. The respondent-registered person was also charged with the violation of sections 7, 8, 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, read with Refund Rules, 2006. On adjudication the Assistant Collector rejected the respondent's refund claim being time barred through his aforementioned order in original. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who relying upon the provisions of S.R.O. No,1204(I)/2007, dated the 11th of December, 2007, accepted the same and the respondent was allowed to apply for filing of the refund claim holding the case of the respondent to be a fit one for availing benefit of the S.R.O.
3. Being aggrieved of the order in appeal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us. The learned DR appearing for the Department mainly contended that since the S.R.O. Did not contain any provision which could have been applied to the case of the present respondent, the latter's appeal was not liable to be accepted. The learned AR on the other hand supported the order in appeal relying upon not only the said provisions but also a number of precedents wherein it was held that rejection of refund merely on the basis of time limitation was not warranted.
4. After hearing both the sides and going through the record of the present case as well as the case-law cited before us, we have found that the submission of the documents by the respondent in support of his refund claim was delayed by 67 days. The Collector (Appeals) relied upon S.R.O.
No,1204(1)/2007, dated the 11th of December, 2007, for allowing the respondent to apply its refund claim. The conditions for extending time limit by the Collector have been reproduced in the memo of appeal of the Revenue. Although none of those was pleased by the respondent, yet the esteemed dictum laid down by the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 64 could not have been A blinked at wherein the latest judicial trend was observed to deprecate and discourage withholding of a 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. The same was followed also by this Tribunal in 2008 PTD (Tirb.)
370. It has been observed by us that the refund claim of the respondent was rejected only on the ground of time limit. So, this was the sole issue to be resolved in the present appeal. The same is resolved keeping in view the said enunciation.
5. For the foregoing, the appeal of the Revenue is held to have no force and is thus dismissed maintaining the order in appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals).