The petitioner is a manufacturer of Gas Pressure Regulators used in Gas Transmission Line. He claims exemption in respect of these Regulators under S.R.O. 697 (1)/77 dated 4-8-1977 and hit case is that the Gas Pressure Regulators manufactured by him are used in the transmission and distribution of gas and are classifiable under P.C.T. Heading 84.61 specified in the table annexed to the S.R.O.
2.The petitioner filed representation before the Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore challenging the levy. This representation was rejected by him vide D.O.C. No. IV (2) Misc/15/85 dated 15th December, 1985. The operative part of his order is reproduced below:- " ....As regards the classification of the subject product, there is no dispute about its being a Pressure Reducing Valve which is used in the distribution system of natural gas. In that capacity it is being used as an integral part of the distribution system and is to be treated as being used in conjunction with the gas distribution machinery. For purposes of levy of sales tax it will fall under P.C.T. Heading 84.61 (C). However, the distribution system of Gas is distinct from the distribution of power. The latter denotes the distribution of electricity to households and commercial or industrial consumers. "Power" in the common parlance is not used to refer to or to include gas and therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate that Gas distribution is synonymous to power distribution for purposes of S.R.O. 697 (1) 77 is incorrect.
3. The petitioner then went before the Central Board of Revenue but his case was turned down vide Board's communication C.No.9 (24) ST/69 dated 26th December, 1988 which, in so far as is relevant for the purposes of this petition, runs as follows:- "I am directed to refer to your representation No. Nil dated 22-11-1.988 on the subject noted above and to say that the contents of your representation have been carefully examined in the Board.
It is regretted that gas pressure reducing valves do not qualify for exemption."
4. The validity of the orders of the Tribunals below has been called in question on a number of grounds but this order need not be burdened with the determination thereof, for, the reasons which prevailed with the C.B.R. In rejecting the petitioner's case are not before this Court. When an order of a Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction is open to scrutiny through judicial review, this A Court has the right to know as to what weighed with such Tribunal in passing the impugned order. The order under challenge in this writ petition is however, silent on this issue. No reason whatsoever for holding that the Gas pressure reducing valves manufactured by the petitioner do not qualify for exemption has been recorded in the Board's order. In these circumstances the proper course for the petitioner would be to move the Board again in the matter. If the petitioner approaches the Board, his case/representation shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably within three months through a speaking order, discussing the issues raised by him and giving reasons in support of the view taken by the Board. The writ petition is disposed of.