UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The petitioner availed exemption under S.R.O. 989(1)/1997 dated 15-10-1997 ("S.R.O.") from levy of customs duty and sales tax on machinery and equipment imported by the petitioner for Neelum Valley Hydro Electric Project. Three consignments of the said equipment and machinery were cleared by the respondent No. 3 Collector of Customs, Karachi on 22-10-1998, on 14-11-1998 and on 1-1-1999 by granting the petitioner benefit of exemption under the aforenoted S.R.O. Unknown at the time to the said respondent , vide notification bearing S.R.O. (1)/1998 dated 1- 7-1998 the aforenoted S.R.O. 989(1)/1997 dated 15-10-1997 was rescinded with immediate effect.
Consequently, upon learning of the said rescission, the respondent No.3 vide impugned demand notice dated 3-6-1999 raised a demand of Rs.7.048 million against the .Petitioner on account of duty and tax payable on the aforenoted three duly cleared consignments for the reason that the exemption availed had actually been recalled on 1-7-1998. The said demand notice dated 3-6- 1999 was challenged in this writ petition filed in the year 2000. Subsequently, the impugned demand notice has merged into an Order-in-Original No.34 of 2001 dated 23-2-2001 which is also challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
2.. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 has raised the objection that this petition is not maintainable to challenge the adjudication Order-in-Original No.34 of 2001 before this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent No.3 is a statutory officer performing functions at Karachi which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Mst. Shahida Mapsood v. President of Pakistan (2005 SCM R 1746.)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand defends the maintainability of this petition firstly on the ground that respondent No.3 functions throughout Pakistan and relies on Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (2000 SCM R 1703) to fortify his submission that the said respondent is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Secondly and more importantly he relies on Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1997 SC 334) to urge that in a case where the notification/ policy decision of the CBR respondent No.2 is also challenged along with an adjudication order passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court then a writ petition is maintainable before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.
4. The first ground of defence taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is not available because the respondent No.3 performs functions in an area that fall solely within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sindh High Court. Accordingly, the analogy of the respondent No.3 with the Trading Corporation of Pakistan that has office all over Pakistan is inapt. The second line of defence is, however, relevant if the challenge in a petition is confined to the vires of an order passed by the CBR. Infact according to the said precedent when the vires of a notification by the C.B.R. Is challenged along with an adjudication order such challenge to the adjudication order is maintainable only before the learned High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which Court, such order has been passed. Accordingly, the rule laid down in the aforenoted precedent is conditional and dependent upon whether or not an adjudication order has been challenged.
5. In the present case, the impugned S.R.O. (1)/98 dated 1-7-1998 has fructified into an adjudication order dated 23-2-2001 passed by respondent No.3 who falls solely within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sindh High Court. Without disputing the adjudication order the petitioner cannot receive any effective relief. Therefore, on the basis of the precedent relied by learned counsel for the petitioner this is a case wherein a challenge to the adjudication Order-in-Original No.34 of 2001 dated 23-2-2001 is maintainable before the learned Sindh High Court.
6. Learned counsel contends that the controversy raised in the petition is still a live issue for the reason that the tax demand of Rs.7.048 million determined to be payable vide the adjudication order dated 23-2-2001 has not yet been discharged by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner may, if so inclined, avail his remedy before the competent court. .
C.M. No.1749 of 2010 Hearing has been granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 30-4-2012.
2. Learned counsel has read from judgment in the Flying .Kraft's case (1997 SCM R 1874). That case pertains to a belated challenge by the respondent tax authorities to the jurisdiction of the Rawalpindi Bench. Moreover, it does not contain a challenge by the importer petitioner to an adjudication order passed by an authority beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench in question. Consequently, the facts of that case are distinguishable from the present case.
3. In this case the objection to the jurisdiction of this Court has been taken at the outset and secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner has expressly prayed for relief against adjudication order dated 23-2-2001 passed by respondents at Karachi.
4. Accordingly, no change in the opinion expressed by this court on 30-4-2012 is called for. In view of the said position the judgment in the case dictated in open court on 30-4-2012 is finalized and signed. C.M. Dismissed. .