' CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This is an appeal against the sales tax Order-in- Appeal No,563/2013, dated .23.7.2013, passed by the learned CIR(A), Faisalabad.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that ex parte sales tax Order-in-Original No,331/2012, dated 18.09.2012, was passed by the concerned AC1R, Zone-II, RIO, Faisalabad which was assailed in appeal by the registered person. The matter was fixed for hearing before the learned CIR(A) on 06.06.2'013 and on the request of the learned AR, the case was adjourned for 12.06.2013. On the said date, no body appeared on behalf of the registered person and accordingly the learned CIR(A) proceeded ex parte vide order dated 23.07.2013 and the decided the appeal on the point of laches instead of on merits of the case.
3. The learned AR assailed the dismissal of registered person's appeal being time barred by the learned CIR(A) as contrary to law and facts of the case. It is the contention of the learned AR that the impugned order was passed on 23.10.2013, which was not the date fixed for hearing. Even otherwise, it is the contended by him that the order passed on the point of laches was not confronted to the appellant by the learned CIR(A). He further relied upon rule 16 of the ATIR Rules, 2010, which provides that up.On the presentation of a memorandum of appeal, the Registrar or the officer authorized under rule 7 shall examine the copy of the order appealed against and shall calculate whether, after allowing the time given by the relevant law, the memorandum of appeal has been presented within time. Its sub-rule (2) further provides that if the memorandum of appeal appears to be presented after the time prescribed by relevant law, a note to this effect shall be recorded by the Registrar or, as the case may be, by the officer so authorized. He further submitted that its sub-rule (3) further provides that where the appellant has not tendered, with the memorandum of appeal, any explanation in writing setting out the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal may allow the appellant to submit an explanation in writing and upon sufficient cause having been shown, may admit the appeal for hearing. It is contended by him that in the instant case, the learned .,CIR(A) has not adopted the same procedure while deciding and holding the appeal being 'time-barred.
4. In my considered view, the learned CIR(A) was under obligation to confront the appellant with the fact that the appeal filed is time barred. On the other hand, the learned AR contended before me that the appeal filed is well within time prescribed under the law and if the learned CIR(A) raised any objection in this regard during the course of proceedings, he would be able to satisfy him that the appeal was well within time.
5. The issue involved in the present case is also decided by me in the case while sitting in a Division Bench vide S.T.A. No,1341/LB/14, re: M/s Osman Enterprises, Lahore, dated 18.02.2015. In the light of the said order and in view of the observation made by me, I deem it expedient to remit the matter to the learned CIR(A) with the direction to confront the registered person the issue, whether the first appeal filed by the registered person is within time or not? After obtaining such explanation, the matter be decided in accordance with law.
' Consequently, the impugned order of the learned CIR(A) is vacated and matter remitted to him for de novo decision.
6. Appeal disposed of in the above manner.