MUMTAZ ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).-(l). This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. SE/ST-104 of 1996, dated 05.06.1996 passed by Collector of Customs, Central Excise & Sales Tax (Appeals), Northern Zone, Rawalpindi and Order-in-Original No. 11/1994 passed by, Assistant Collector, Sales Tax, Collectorate of Central Excise and Sales Tax Rawalpindi. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that M/s. Saheen Lime, engaged in the manufacturing of bricks were liable ,, to Sales Tax since October, 1992 but they did not pay this tax
2. The case was heard on 07.10.1996. Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate argued the case on behalf of the appellant while Mr. Siddique Awan, Deputy Superintendent attended as Departmental Representative.
3. The learned Counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, Islamabad had passed his impugned order No. 11/1994, dated 24.1.1994 on the back of the appellant as neither a Show Cause Notice was ever received by the appellant nor any opportunity of defence was provided by the respondent No. 2 before passing the subject order. He further submitted that the impugned order was also outside the Assistant Collector's jurisdiction because under SRO 994(I)/1992, dated 08.10.1992, the Assistant Collector in BPS-17 is not authorised to adjudicate cases involving taxable goods exceeding the value of Rs. 100,000/- whereas in the instant case the differential demand raised after the passing of the impugned order is in the tune of Rs. 25,38,000/- which by implication means that the value of the goods is much higher and so the case is without jurisdiction and therefore void as held by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in their order reported as PU 19d? SC (AJK) 57, He further submitted that the appeal would not suffer from the limitation constraint because in the case of a void order it has been held by the Baluchistan High Court that there is no limitation to seek relief against a void order (PLD 1988-Quetta 1992 DB). He also relied on another case reported as PLD 1988 Revenue 1952.
4. The Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 07.01.1993 was first sent by post to the appellant but when it was received back undelivered, it was personally served on the appellant by the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi. If the appellant failed to appear before the learned Assistant Collector on the hearing date it was of his own choosing but did not amount to denial of opportunity of defence to the appellant. He has further submitted that the impugned order is not without jurisdiction as the learned Assistant Collector has decided upon the principle that the appellant was liable to pay sales tax and required him to pay the same in respect of the lapsed period but without determining liability of the appellant in precise terms which the proper officer of Sales Tax had eventually to do. With regards to the other averments of the appellant's Counsel he however did not make any submission.
5. What is apparent from the record is the fact that the learned Assistant Collector has passed a quasi-judicial order which is based on certain quantities of goods manufactured and supplied by the appellant. The value of these goods far exceeds the amount of Rs. 100,000/-. He being an officer in BPS-17 at the time of passing this order was not competent to pass order in this matter, as it fell in the jurisdiction of the Collector of Sales Tax. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for denovo consideration to the learned Collector of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi.
The matter of the short assessm ent in this case shall be deemed to be a pending proceeding before him which he shall dispose of by considering it afresh and affording appropriate opportunity of defence to the appellant.
6. Appeal accepted to the extent ordered above.