' JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).--The department through this appeal has objected to the Order-in-Appeals No,612-631 of 2007 dated 26-12-2007 passed by the learned Collector Collectorate of Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Appeals), Faisalabad on the following grounds:-- "(1). Rule 28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, narrates as under:- "28. Filing of refund claim.---(1) Monthly sales tax return filed by a claimant shall he treated as a refund claim once all the supportive documents including the requisite data in the format or software (RCPS), has been received: ' Provided that no refund claim shall be entertained if the claimant fails to furnish the claim on the prescribed software (RCPS) along with the supportive documents within sixty days of the filing of return: ' Provided further that the period of sixty days as aforesaid, in case of a commercial exporter, shall be reckoned from the date when the BCA is issued to him by the concerned bank.
(2) In cases where such supportive documents are not submitted to the officer in-charge within the time specified under sub-rule (1), the Collector of Sales Tax having jurisdiction may, on a written request from the claimant justifying the reasons for delay in submission of such documents or data on RCPS, extend the time limit for a further thirty days."
' The respondent failed to file the refund claim (supporting documents) within the prescribed time without any reason, therefore, the claim does not stand admissible.
(2) The Collector (Appeals) has referred to S.R.O. 1204(1)/2007 dated 11-12-2007, in the impugned Order-in-Appeal while accepting the appeal of the respondent, which does not authorize the Collector (Appeals) to accept any appeal on grounds/ conditions mentioned therein.
(3) The said S.R.O. As amended, has crystallized the categories/ conditions in which the Collector Sales Tax has been empowered to allow extension up to 31-1-2008, narrated as under:- ".. The Federal Board of Revenue is pleased to empower Collector of Sales Tax having jurisdiction to allow extension up to the 31st January, 2008 for furnishing refund claims pertaining to tax periods from July, 2006 to September, 2007 on the prescribed software along with the supportive documents under rule 28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, if the delay in filing of claim and documents is due to:
(a) incorrect feeding of returns by the department;
(b) non-working of computer system in Collectorate or there was some error in the refund claim preparation software (RCPS):
(c) incomplete data in Computerized Risk-based Evaluation of Sales Tax (CREST) System: or
(d) delay in getting certified documents from other departments or agencies despite the fact that the registered person applied for the same in time: ' Provided that extension shall not be allowed by. Collectors to registered persons filing refund claims against revised returns and to blacklisted registered persons."
(4) The claim of the respondent did not qualify for retention for the reason:
(i) As cited above Rule 28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 read with section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the claim of the respondent is barred by time, hence, not admissible and liable to be rejected.
(ii) That the claimant had already been provided with enough opportunity to prove his bona fide that the filing of claim (supportive document) was unavoidable and unintentional but he failed to put any evidence in his defence. Proper adjudication proceedings were completed and proper Order-in-Original was passed by the competent authority.
(iii) That the respondent did not qualify/fulfil any of the conditions mentioned in S.R.O. 1204(1)/2007 dated 11-12-2007.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-registered person.
3. 1 have, however, found that the learned Collector (Appeals) has observed that the refund claim applied by the respondent-registered person is fit case for availing benefit as provided in the S.R.O.
And has, therefore, allowed the respondent-registered person to apply for filing of the refund claim up to 31-1-2008 under the provisions of S.R.O. 1204(1)/2007 dated 11-12-2007 to the department.
4. Brief facts of the case as given in the impugned orders of the officers below are that during scrutiny of the refund claim for the tax period 7 of 2006 filed by the respondent-registered person, it was observed that the respondent-registered person did not file refund claim along with supporting documents within sixty days of the filing of the Return under Rule 28(1) of S.R.O.
555(1)/2006 dated 5-6-2006. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim being barred by time 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, the above titled respondent- registered person was charged with violation of sections 7, 8, 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 and were called upon to show-cause as to why input tax refund 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 Nos.297-476 of 2007 dated 25-8-2007 for rejection of refund claim under sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the above- referred Act. The respondent-registered person filed appeal before the learned Collector (Appeals) who has given the above directions against which the department is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. I have found that the appellant-department has filed along with the memo. Of appeal the Sales Tax Order-in-Original Nos.714 to 873 of 2007 which as per impugned order the Collector has decided the appeal regarding Order-in-Original Nos.297-476 of 2007 dated 25-8-2007 while perusal of the order-in-original annexed with the memo of appeal, I have found that the adjudicating officer/Assistant Collector has passed the order in the case of Messrs Mubarik Processing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad and in the end in the concluding Para.7 has written that this order-in-original will also apply mutatis mutandis to the other 160 cases wherein the instant case of the respondent-registered person has been given at Serial No,17. I am of the view that this tendency of adjudicating the cases at the original assessment level is not in accordance with the law. Every case has its own facts and circumstances and separate order for each case should be made by the adjudicating authority. I have further noted that the impugned order of the learned Collector is also in the matter of Messrs Chaudhry Hosiery, 496-Jinnah Colony, Faisalabad and through this consolidated order 19 other matters including the present respondent-registered person are decided which has been mentioned at Serial No,1 . I am of the view that as the appellate authority has decided the issue on the legal footings, therefore, the appellate authority decided the appeals through the consolidated order but there is no justification for passing the original orders in so many cases through a single order. On merits of the case, I have found that the respondent- registered person in this case has made zero-rated exports and has subsequently filed refund claims with the appellant-department which were rejected being time barred. The learned Collector (Appeals) has allowed the respondent-registered person to file the claim as the F.B.R. Has already facilitated the claimants vide Notification No,1204(1) of 2007 dated 11-12-2007 allowing them to furnish refund claims pertaining to the tax period July, 2006 to September, 2007 up to 31-1- 2008 on the prescribed software along with the supportive documents under Rule 28 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006. He has, therefore, observed in the light of the said notification that the refund claim of the respondent-registered person in this case is a fit case for availing the benefit as provided in the said S.R.O. I, therefore, find no warrant for interference in the impugned order-in-appeal which is upheld and the appeal filed by the department is dismissed with the above said observations made regarding the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority.