' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---In this Constitutional petition, orders of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore, passed under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, purporting to exercise powers as a Sales Tax Officers, has been impugned and also the orders passed by the Appellate and. Regional Authorities. We have heard Mr. Anwer Mansoor Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Apart from making submissions on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a question of jurisdiction. It has been pointed out by the :learned counsel that the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, had no authority or jurisdiction to make any assessment under section 10 of the. Sales Tax Act, 1951.
3. Under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, a Sales Tax Officer is the authority designated to pass orders. Reference was made to the Sales Tax Circular No,7 of 1981 by which officers of the Central Excise were appointed officers under the Sales Tax Act, 1951, authorising them to pass orders under different provisions of the Sales Tax Act. A reference to the Sales Tax Circular 7/1981 shows that as far as the Assistant Collectors of Customs/Central Excise are concerned they have been appointed as Sales Tax Officers to exercise powers of such officers. In so far as the Deputy Collectors of Customs/Central Excise are concerned they have been appointed as Inspecting Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax.
4. In the instant case, the assessm ent was required to be made by the Assistant Collector of Customs/Central Excise and the assessment by the Deputy Collector of Customs/Central Excise was without jurisdiction.
5. In this case, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court, both of which support the contention of the learned counsel. First case is of S.M. Saleem. v. Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs 1990 PTD 1984 and the other case is of Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Deputy Collector of Customs (1990) PTD 516. In these two decisions it has been held that the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector were completely illegal and without jurisdiction.
6. Following our earlier decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the initial order passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs was wholly without jurisdiction and as a result the orders passed in appeal and revision are also without jurisdiction.
7. As a result, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. However, the competent authority is free to issue notices to the petitioners and take action in accordance with the law against the petitioner if they decide so.
' There will be no order as to costs.