Power of adjudication

Where Adjudication Officer had passed the order-in-original after 3 years, 2 months and 24 days instead of 120 days as specified in S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, Customs Appellate Tribunal held that the time lines prescribed in S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, were mandatory and not directory

Order-in-original was set aside without touching merits of the case

Appeal was accepted.

Neither superior nor subordinate is empowered to assume powers of his superior or subordinates, unless Federal Board of Revenue is desirous of fixing or varying jurisdiction and powers of any officer of customs or a class of officers through a notification in official gazette as per expression of S.179(2) of Customs Act, 1969, assign or transfer any case to any officer of customs, irrespective designation or territorial jurisdiction.

Neither superior nor subordinate is empowered to assume powers of his superior or subordinates, unless Federal Board of Revenue is desirous of fixing or varying jurisdiction and powers of any officer of customs or a class of officers through a notification in official gazette as per expression of S.179(2) of Customs Act, 1969, assign or transfer any case to any officer of customs, irrespective of designation or territorial jurisdiction.

Appellant assailed the order passed by Additional Collector of Customs whereby he had ordered for payment of short levied amount of duty and taxes

Validity

Amount involved in the case was Rs.3,333,331.00 (paid Rs.1,282,895.00 for obtaining clearance + paid additional amount of duty and taxes of Rs.622,429 + revenue loss shown in the show-cause notice of Rs.1,428,007.00)

Competent authority to adjudicate the case being Collector of Customs, impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Availability of word "taxes" in Ss.32(2) & (3) of Customs Act, 1969, do not automatically empower the Customs Department to assume powers under the provisions of S.11(2) & (3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, unless legislature appoints an officer of Customs as "Officer of Inland Revenue/Commissioner of Income Tax", who has powers under said sections to take cognizance in the matter relating to sales tax and income tax

Words "taxes" used in Ss. 179 & 32, Customs Act, 1969, are only inserted for assumption of powers of adjudication on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes by the appropriate adjudication authority

Despite insertion of the word "taxes" in said sections adjudicating authority has to issue show-cause notice within the respective applicable provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, only and not under S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Section 179(1), Customs Act, 1969, reveals that the authority defined therein has to exercise powers, neither superior nor subordinate is empowered to assume the powers of his superior or subordinates, unless Federal Board of Revenue is desirous of fixing or varying the jurisdiction and powers of any officer of Customs or a class of officers through a notification in official gazette as per the expression of S.179(2), Customs Act, 1969.

Officers of Customs are not empowered to exercise the powers under S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Appellant contended that the customs department had no jurisdiction to show-cause notice for recovery of sales tax/income tax

Department contended that incorporation of the word "taxes" in Ss. 32 & 179 of Customs Act, 1969 was sufficient to assume jurisdiction under S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.162 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Availability of word "taxes" did not automatically empower the department to assume powers under the provisions of Ss.11(2) and (3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, unless legislature appointed an officer of customs as "Officer of Inland Revenue/Commissioner of Income Tax", who had powers under said sections to take cognizance in the matter relating to sales tax and income tax

Word "taxes" used in Ss.179 & 32, Customs Act, 1969 were only inserted for assumption of powers of adjudication on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes by the appropriate adjudication authority

Despite insertion of the word "taxes" in said sections adjudicating authority had to issue show-cause notice within the respective applicable provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 only and not under S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which otherwise were non-existent in the show-cause notice

Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by Officer of Customs and allowed the appeal.

Examination of goods confirmed the declaration with the exception of 53 cartons containing 2800 pieces of footballs as of "Nike" brand, which was not exportable

Contravention report was framed and show-cause notice was issued with the allegation of mis-declaration and non-exportability of goods in terms of S. 3(c) of Import and Export Control Act, 1950 and Export Policy Order

Adjudicating authority confiscated the offending goods and imposed penalty

Validity

Order of Assistant Collector (Adjudication) of taking cognizance under S.15(a), Customs Act, 1969 and para. 17 and serial No. 4 of Export Policy Order 2016 despite availability of Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement under S. 3CC was without lawful authority

Any action under the Intellectual Property Rights had to be taken by the Authority defined in Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 and that too after receipt of complaint from the person/company, in whose name that product/item was registered

No action was warranted under law, in absence of any complaint

Any action on a complaint had to be taken by the Authority

Suo motu powers under S.15(a), Customs Act, 1969 and para 17 and serial No. 4 of Export Policy Order were not available to any authority and Assistant Collector (Adjudication) was not an exception

No complaint was filed by the right holder of brands "Mitre" and "Nike" was filed

Appellate Tribunal declared the detention of goods and their subsequent seizure by Assistant Collector (Adjudication) to be without lawful authority/jurisdiction

Appeal was allowed.

Expression of S.179, Customs Act, 1969 was unambiguous with regards to assumption of powers by the adjudicating authorities in cases involving mis-declaration

Adjudicating authority could assume jurisdiction on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes i.e. "amount of duty and taxes involved excluding the conveyance" in the cases of import, whereas in case of export twice to the monetary limit expressed in subsection (1) of S.179 of the Act.

Examination of goods confirmed the declaration with the exception of 53 cartons containing 2800 pieces of footballs as of "Nike" Brand, which was said to be not exportable

Contravention report was framed and show cause notice was issued with the allegation of mis-declaration and non-exportability of goods in terms of S. 3(c) of Imports and Exports Control Act, 1950 and Export Policy Order

Adjudicating authority confiscated the offending goods and imposed penalty

Validity

No mis-declaration was apparent and show-cause notice was silent regarding loss of revenue

No value of offending goods was incorporated in the show-cause notice

Power to adjudicate such like cases rested with the Principal Appraiser, who had to take into consideration the examination conducted and documents uploaded

Assistant Collector (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice, despite the fact that there was no revenue loss, while relying on the ground that there existed an element of mis-declaration

Powers of adjudicating authority were specific and had to be used by the authority empowered none else

Superior authority was not empowered to exercise the powers of its subordinate in the course of adjudication

Assistant Collector (Adjudication) had transgressed the powers of Principal Appraiser

Principal Appraiser could not frame contravention report and Assistant Collector (Adjudication) to issue show-cause notice and pass order-in-original, in circumstances

Appellant would have been directed to get the contravening goods removed or allowed to be exported as per practice invoke since last many years

Customs authorities were supposed to adhere to their own precedent in administering taxing statutes

Appellate Tribunal annulled the show cause notice and set aside the order passed by Assistant Collector (Adjudication)

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 10.11.2007; order-in-original was passed on 30.6.2008 and the same was conveyed to the appellant on 3.7.2008

Validity

Order, according to S. 179, Customs Act, 1969, had to be issued within 120 days of issuance of show cause notice

Order-in-original was invalid and time barred unless the extension was allowed by the Collector under S.179(3) of Customs Act, 1969

Department had not produced any document to show that extension was allowed by the Federal Board of Revenue

Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

Department, after issuance of show cause notice, directed recovery of benefit of sales tax exemption wrongly availed by appellant

Appellant contended that the customs department had no jurisdiction to show cause notice for recovery of sales tax/income tax

Department contended that incorporation of the word "taxes" in Ss. 32 & 179 of Customs Act, 1969 was sufficient to assume jurisdiction under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 162 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Availability of word "taxes" did not automatically empower the department to assume powers under the provisions of S. 11(2) and (3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, unless legislature appointed an officer of customs as "Officer of Inland Revenue/Commissioner of Income Tax", who had powers under said sections to take cognizance in the matter relating to sales tax and income tax

Word "taxes" used in Ss. 179 and 32, Customs Act, 1969 were only inserted for assumption of powers of adjudication on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes by the appropriate adjudicating authority

Despite insertion of the word "taxes" in said sections adjudicating authority had to issue show cause notice within the respective applicable provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 only and not under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which otherwise were non-existent in the show-cause notice

Appellate Tribunal set aside the order-in-original passed by Additional Collector of Customs and allowed the appeal.

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice and Collector of Customs (Adjudication) passed order thereon

Validity

Powers had to be assumed on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes

Power to adjudicate the case rested with the Principal Appraiser in terms of Cls. (vi) of S. 179, Customs Act, 1969

Show-cause notice in the present case was issued by Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) and order in the case had to be passed by him and by none else

Collector of Customs (Adjudication) passed order in exercise of powers of Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication)

Action of authority had to be restricted to the specific sphere permitted by the statute

Appellate Tribunal held the issuance of show-cause notice and passing of order-in-original to be void ab initio, illegal and of no legal effect

Appeal was allowed.

Record of case can only be demanded by Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit for conducting audit under S. 26(2), Customs Act, 1969 after serving notice/summon as per contemplation of S.26A, Customs Act, 1969

Collector of Customs (Adjudication) has no power to conduct audit.

Fresh order, in the presence of an appealable order, cannot be passed even in the shape of re-assessment order or through issuance of show-cause notice under S.180, Customs Act, 1969, while exercising powers under the provisions of S. 179 of the Act.

Deputy Collector of Customs, Intelligence Units, detained the goods of appellant on exit gate after their release by Clearance Collectorate; charged appellant for mis-declaration and created recovery of duty, income tax and sales tax

Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice and passed order-in-original

Plea of department was that incorporation of word "taxes" in Ss. 32 & 179, Customs Act, 1969 was sufficient for creating recovery of sales tax under S. 11, Sales Tax Act, 1990 and the income tax under S.162, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Word "taxes" in S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969 did not empower the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) to assume powers under the provisions of S.11(2) and (3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) could not invoke said sections unless legislature appointed him as an "Officer of Inland Revenue/Commissioner of Income Tax"

Insertion of word "taxes" in Ss. 179 & 32 of Customs Act, 1969 was only for assuming powers on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes by appropriate adjudicating authority

Despite insertion of word "taxes" in both sections, adjudicating authority had to issue show-cause notice within the respective applicable provisions of Customs Act, 1969 only and not under any charging section or S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1969 or S. 162 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Customs Collectorate had powers to collect sales tax and income tax as duty at import stage

Customs Collectorate could recover the amount of sales tax and income tax upon receipt of notice from the officer of Inland Revenue and Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of S. 48, Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S.140, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but had no powers to adjudicate the cases of short recovery of sales tax and income tax

Show-cause notice issued by Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) was held to be void and of no legal effect

Appeal was allowed.

Assistant Director, Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit issued audit observations and framed contravention report

Deputy Collector (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice alleging mis-declaration of PCT heading and thereafter ordered for recovery of evaded amount of duty and taxes

Appeal filed before Collector of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed

Validity

Section 179, Customs Act, 1969 expressed that the powers of adjudication had to be determined by the authority adjudicating the case on the basis of "amount of duty and taxes involved, excluding the conveyance"

Amount of duty and taxes involved in the present case was Rs. 4,82,295/

Case of such amount fell within the powers of Assistant Collector of Customs in terms of clause (iv) of subsection (1) of S. 179, Customs Act, 1969

Deputy Collector had issued show-cause notice and passed order-in-original by usurping the powers of Assistant Collector

No one was allowed to usurp the powers of the adjudicating authority

Said usurpation rendered the act of issuance of show-cause notice and passing of order-in-original without power and jurisdiction, hence, null, void ab initio and coram non judice

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Fresh order could not be passed in the presence of appealable order even through issuance of show-cause notice under S. 180, Customs Act, 1969 while exercising powers under the provisions of S. 179, Customs Act, 1969.

Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation detained the goods of importer at the exit gate after their release by Clearance Collectorate

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice and passed order-in-original

Appeal filed against order-in-original was dismissed

Plea of department was that incorporation of word "taxes" in Ss. 32 & 179, Customs Act, 1969 was sufficient for creating recovery of sales tax and income tax

Validity

Existence of word "taxes" in S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 did not empower the Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) to assume powers under the provisions of S.11(2) & (3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) could not invoke said sections

Word "taxes" in Ss.179 & 32 of Customs Act, 1969 was only for assuming powers on the basis of involved amount of duty and taxes by appropriate adjudicating authority

Despite existence of word "taxes" in both the Ss.179 & 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, adjudicating authority had to issue show-cause notice within the respective applicable provisions of Customs Act, 1969 only

Customs Collectorate could recover the amount of sales tax and income tax upon receipt of notice from the officer of Inland Revenue and Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of S.48, Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 140, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but had no powers to adjudicate the cases of short recovery of sales tax and income tax

Show-cause notice issued by Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) was held to be void and of no legal effect.

Expression of S. 179, Customs Act, 1969, was very clear in regards to determination of the powers of the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of amount of duty and taxes involved excluding the conveyance and not the amount of evaded duty and taxes

Present case involved amount of Rs. 22,00,880, competent authority was Additional Collector of Customs to adjudicate the case of said amount under clause (ii) of S. 179(1), Customs Act, 1969

Assistant Collector of Customs had issued the show-cause notice while usurping the powers of his superiors, show-cause notice, in circumstances, was issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction.

Customs Collectorates can recover the amount of Sales Tax and Income Tax upon receipt of notice from the Officer of Inland Revenue and Commissioner of Income Tax, in terms of S. 48 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 & S. 140 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for recovery of the adjudged amount of Sales Tax and Income Tax after due process of law

Clearance Collectorates have the authority to collect Sales Tax and Income Tax at import stage in the capacity of collecting agents and can recover escaped/short paid customs duty and regulatory duty levied on the imported goods but do not have the powers to adjudicate cases of short recovery of Sales Tax and Income Tax.

Appellant approached the terminal operator for delivery of goods who showed his inability to deliver on the ground that Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) had blocked the goods declaration

Appellant approached Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) who informed that goods in question seemed to be of Indian origin and re-examination was required

Re-examination was conducted which revealed the same result as that of earlier assessment order

Despite the very fact Deputy Collector of Customs framed contravention report and forwarded the same to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) for issuance of show-cause notice

Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) confiscated the goods and imposed penalty equivalent to the value of goods

Validity

Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit and its officers were delegated powers through S.R.O. No. 500(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009 for conducting audit of import books of account which included every aspect of declaration made by the importer and assessment order passed by the competent authority

Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit could prepare audit observation and forward it to the importer for clarification and if the reply failed to settle the issue, frame contravention report and forward the same to the Clearance Collectorate which was to forward it to the respective Collectorate of Customs Adjudication for issuance of show-cause notice and passing of order-in-original

Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) in the present case, had assumed the powers of officials of Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit and conducted the post clearance audit of the goods declaration of importer

Preparation of contravention report by Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) was without lawful authority and superstructure built thereon was void ab initio and coram non judice.

Plea of department was that technicalities of law should not be allowed to impede the interest of justice or should become an insurmountable hurdle for that purpose

Validity

Mandate and compliance of law was not a technicality, rather it was a stipulation of law, which had to be adhered to and complied with in letter and spirit.

Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) passed reassessment order after a lapse of 10 months and created recovery by amending the existing assessment order

Validity

Legislature had inserted S.3DD in Customs Act, 1969 through which Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit was created and its officers were delegated powers through S.R.O. No.500(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009 for conducting audit of import books of account which included every aspect of declaration made by the importer and assessment order passed by the competent authority

Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit could prepare audit observation and forward it to the importer for clarification and if the reply failed to settle the issue frame contravention report and forward it to the Clearance Collectorate which shall forward it to the respective Collectorate of Customs Adjudication for issuance of show-cause notice and passing of order-in-original

Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) assumed the jurisdiction of Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit under S.26A, Customs Act, 1969

Only course left for the Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) was to file an appeal before Collector of Customs (Appeals)

Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement), instead of the prescribed method, reopened the assessment/clearance order under S.195, Customs Act, 1969 which powers were either vested with the Federal Board of Revenue or the Collector of Customs

No appeal had been filed against the assessment order within the stipulated period of 30 days resultantly, it attained finality and could not be disturbed being a past and closed transaction.

Issue, in the present case, was whether Deputy Collector and Assistant Collector, could issue show-cause notice/pass order-in-original in excess of their monetory limit expressed in S.45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Amount of refund involved in the case being Rs.4,952,683,00, power to adjudicate the case would rest with the Additional Collector in terms of cl.(i) of S.45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Deputy Collector had issued show-cause notice by assuming the powers of Additional Collector, rendering same to be void ab initio and as such coram non judice

Order-in-original had been passed by Assistant Collector, again by usurping the powers of Additional Collector

Officers could not act in derogation of the provisions of S.45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, when it was precondition for him to look into the provisions of S.45, prior to issuing show-cause notice/passing of order-in-original

Both the officers had usurped the powers of their superior Officers

Determination of jurisdiction by the court/Authority seized with the matter was one of the important elements in administration of justice

Assuming of powers by the Deputy/Assistant Collector of the Sales Tax in the case of appellant, being coram non judice, was ab initio null and void and of no legal effect

Officer having crossed his limit which was not allowable, action of the Officer was without jurisdiction.

Federal Board of Revenue, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under S.3 of the Customs Act, 1969, established a separate forum namely 'Collector of Customs Adjudication' through Notification No.886(I)/2012, dated 18-7-2012

Object of said forum was adjudication of the cases of misdeclaration, causing revenue loss under S.179 of the Customs Act, 1969

Word 'mis-declaration' though was used in the show-cause notice, but provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969 had not been invoked; neither any revenue loss had been incorporated, rendering the case outside the purview of the Collectorate of Customs, Adjudication and same would fall within the cases pertaining to contravention of technical violation of import or export restriction, without involving of any evasion of duty and taxes

Case of the appellant, at the most would fall under para 3(d) of Notification and the power to adjudicate such type of cases would rest with to Executive Collectorate.

Provisions of S.179(1) of Customs Act, 1969 had been made subject to variation by Department and it was in this context that, S.R.O. No.886/2012 dated 18-7-2012 was issued by Department wherein jurisdiction aspects of Officers of Customs in the Adjudication Collectorate were stipulated

Such provisions superceded certain jurisdiction attributes provided under S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

Pecuniary jurisdiction of officers of sales tax, additional tax, penalty and recovery of amount erroneously refunded was primarily notified by Board vide S.R.O. No 555(I)/1996 dated 01-06-1996 in exercise of powers conferred by S. 11(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Later on by virtue of S. 45 of Finance Act, 2000 titled as 'Power of adjudication' was added to Sales Tax Act, 1990 and at the same time provisions of S. 11(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 empowering the Board to notify adjudication powers of sales tax officers were omitted

Powers of adjudication for officers of sales tax became a subject of supreme legislation as enacted under new provisions of S. 45 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Board remained no more empowered through subordinate legislation by way of any notification to specify pecuniary jurisdiction of officers of sales tax for adjudication

After enactment of S. 45 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 which was a supreme legislation, provisions of S.R.O. No. 555(I)/1996 dated 01-06-1996 which by all means was a subordinate legislation became redundant and ineffective till its rescission vide S.R.O. No. 594(I)/2012 dated 01-06-2012.

After omission of S. 45 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2010, revival of S.R.O. No.555(I)/1996 dated 1-6-1996 was not possible as provisions of S. 11(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 were omitted from Statute book and by its deletion, Board remained no more empowered to notify adjudication jurisdiction of officers of Sales Tax, hence, S.R.O. No 555(I)/1996 dated 1-6-1996 became redundant and superfluous loosing its legal existence and sanctity.

Provisions of S.31(3) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 permitted further extensions of 60 days for reason to be recorded in writing and 30 days in case the adjournments availed by the taxpayer

Total number of 210 days were available to the officer to pass an Order-in-Original

Record revealed that case was heard on 7-10-2011, 25-11-2011, 22-2-2012 and 28-2-2012

Hearing and factual grant of opportunities and adjournments fully justified the officer to step in the additional time limits, which was beyond 120 days and also construed valid reason

Order-in-Original was within days of statutory time limit.

Issue of valuation was adjudicated upon by Assistant Collector who found that the value of goods had been understated and directed the respondent / importer to pay different amount for customs duties and taxes

Said order of Assistant Collector was set aside by Appellate Tribunal on the ground that under S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 the Assistant Collector did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter

Customs Department impugned said order of Appellate Tribunal

Validity

Perusal of S.179 of the Customs Act, 1969 revealed that each authority working under the hierarchy of the customs department had been assigned a job to perform its duties within the parameter as specifically provided under the law and said hierarchy did not include Assistant Collector

Admitted on the record that adjudication was done by Assistant Collector regarding an amount of Rupees 28,876,294 whereas under S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 the authority to adjudicate upon the case exceeding Rupees 15,000,00 vested only with the Collector

Order-in-original was therefore, without jurisdiction making the entire proceedings coram non judice

Any transgression to the responsibility assigned within the parameters of S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 would render the entire exercise of authority ab initio void and illegal

Findings of Appellate Tribunal could not be interfered with

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

As per provision of S.33(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as relevant, on the date the order was mandated to be finalized within 45 days of the issuance of Show-Cause Notice within such extended period for which reasons were to be recorded in writing and such extended period which was not to exceed ninety days in total

In the present case, no extension was granted as was clear from the Order-in-Original and the record

Order-in-Original had been passed after 3 years and 11 months (i.e. 1429 days) after issuance of Show-Cause Notice which was time barred

Where law prescribed period of time for recovery of money, recovery was not enforceable after lapse of such prescribed period

Order-in-Original being time barred and not sustainable in law was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal.

On the date of order departmental official was mandated to finalize the assessment within 45 days of the issuance of Show-Cause Notice

No extension was granted which was clear from the order-in-original and record

Order-in-Original was passed after about 13 months (404 days), therefore same was time barred

Where law prescribed period of time for recovery of money, after lapse of such prescribed period, recovery was not enforceable

Order-in-Original dated 23-6-2003 was time barred and not sustainable in law which was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal.

Sales Tax General Order No.4/98 bearing C.No. 3(23)STP/98 dated Islamabad, the 12th August, 1998 provided. that the Collectors were made responsible to receive, monitor and scrutinize each and every order-in-original, order-in-appeal, appellate order/decision of, passed by the Tribunal for the purpose of determination of propriety and justification of filing of appeal under Ss.45, 46 & 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and thus impliedly the Collectors were responsible and authorized to file the appeal.