' M.A. JAVED SHAHEEN (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---Titled appeals have been filed by the appellant/registered person against the separate impugned Order-in-Appeals Nos.907 of 2009 and 908 of 2009 dated 9-9-2009 passed by learned Collectorate 'of Sales Tax, Federal Excise (Appeals), Faisalabad whereby refund claim of Rs,80,355 for the tax period December, 2007 and Rs,67,394 for the tax period January, 2008 totaling to Rs,1,47,749 is involved and the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Messrs Sweety Textiles (Pvt.) Limited is manufacturer cum exporter. During processing/scrutiny of refund claim of Rs,1,47,749 was deferred for the tax period December, 2007 and January 2008, the revenue observed certain discrepancies like invoice requires verification, duplicate, MR No, and Date mismatched, Exceeds declared input, wrong tax period and does not exist. Based on the abovementioned discrepancies the taxpayer was charged with the violation of sections 4, 7, 8(1), 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with section 2(14) and Refund Rules (The Sales Tax Rules, 2006 notified vide S.R.O. 555(1)/2006 dated 5-6-2006).
Accordingly separate show-cause notices even same dated 5-9-2008 were issued to the taxpayer under section 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as to why their refund claim may not be rejected. In reply to the show-cause notices, the registered person had failed to submit requisite documentary evidences, therefore Order-in-Original Nos. 448 of 2008 and 1690 of 2008 dated 5-9-2008 were passed by the Deputy Collector (Refund).
3. Being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out by the adjudicating authority the appellant/registered person filed appeal before the Collector of Sales Tax, Faisalabad who upheld the action of the Deputy Collector' (Refund). Feeling aggrieved with the treatment given by the learned first appellate authority, the appellant/registered person is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The learned AR of the appellant has submitted that the taxpayer has right to receive the refund 0f input tax that he had paid against the purchases and has made no default on his part. It is contended by the learned AR that the objections raised by the STARR system are not sufficient grounds for rejecting sales tax refund and it is the responsibility of the Sales Tax Department to audit and recover the sales tax from the defaulters. The learned AR of the appellant/respondent has challenged the orders of the authorities below and has argued that during the adjudication proceedings, the documents in respect of refund claim were submitted but the same were not considered by the concerned authorities. He has further argued that the authorities below ignored the judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court which are binding of the lower forums. The arguments of the learned AR are mostly in terms of grounds of appeal. Reliance has been placed by the learned AR on the reported judgment cited as 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1522 and 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2128.
On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below for the reasons recorded therein.
5. I have considered the arguments put forth by the learned representatives of both the parties and the orders of the authorities below. I am inclined to agree with the assertions made at the bar by the learned AR on the issue of verification of documents. At this juncture, it is requested by the AR that the case be remanded back to the concerned Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue for re- processing of the case.. The learned DR has shown no reservation if the case is remanded back to the concerned officer for afresh proceedings. Keeping in view the above discussion, both the orders of authorities below are declared to be illegal, void and without lawful authority. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the concerned officer for processing of the taxpayer's refunds claim afresh in the light of documentary evidences available with the appellant. Proper opportunity, as envisaged under the law, be accorded to the taxpayer. The appellant/registered person is also directed to cooperate with the- department in the de novo proceedings.
6. Both the appeals filed by the appellant/registered person are disposed of in the above said manner: