JUDGMENT: AJMAL MIAN, J.-1. In this reference the only question, which requires consideration by this Court is as follows:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales-tax Officer, (Investigation) Circle, Karachi, can have jurisdiction under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Sales Tax Act."
2. In support of the above reference, it has been contended by Mr. Hassan Inamullah, learned counsel for the applicant that since the assessment order in respect of the sales tax for the assessm ent years, 1958-59 was passed by the Sales Tax Officer (Investigation) Circle, Karachi, the above order was without jurisdiction in view of the sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Sales Tax Act, which provides as follows:- "Section 5.-Tax Authorities (1) Every Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Sales-Tax, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Recovery Officer and Income Tax Officer shall exercise the powers of a Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Inspecting and Sales Tax Officer of Sales Tax, Tax Recovery Officer and Sales Tax Officer, respectively, under this Act and^in relation to the same area and cases as he exercises under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979."
It may be noticed that the above quoted section provides that every Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Recovery Officer and Income Tax Officer shall exercise the powers of a Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Tax Recovery Officer and Sale Tax Officer respectively, under the Act in relation to the same area and cases as he exercises under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
It has been vehemently urged by Mr. Hassan Inamullah that since admittedly the Sales Tax Officer (Investigation) Circle-VI, Karachi had no jurisdiction in respect of Income Tax pertaining to the applicant's assessm ent, he could not have exercised the power of Sales Tax Officer CL. 100 Vol. 1U Pakistan Tax and Corporate Laws, 1985 (case Laws) \ as the same person could not be the Sales Tax Officer, who had the power under the Income Tax Ordinance to assess the applicant. However, from the impugned order, it seems that the Central Board of Revenue under sub-section (2) of Section 5 had authorised the above Sales Tax Officer (Investigation) Circle-Vl, Karachi to have jurisdiction in relation to the applicant's case. It may be observed that under sub-section (2) of Section 5, it has been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may appoint any person by name or by virtue of office to exercise the powers of a Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax or Sales Tax Officer in respect of an area or in respect of any case or class of cases and that the person so appointed shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the authority mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 5.
3. In this view of the matter, the answer to the above question is in the affirmative.
4. There will be no order as to costs.