(a) Words and phrases‑‑

‑‑‑‑"Adjudicate"‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑To adjudicate, necessarily implies settling a matter‑‑‑Word `adjudicate' is synonymous with the word `adjudge'‑‑‑Adjudicatory process may be before an administrative authority or before a Court of law‑‑‑Even if it is before an administrative agency, the rights are to be adjudged after notice to parties affording them opportunity of hearing and appraisal of record.  

People v. Rave 364, III, 72, 3 N.E. 2d 972, 975; Allegpeny Ludlum Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n, 501 pa. 71, 459A. 2d 1281 1221 ref.

(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Imposing of sales tax‑‑‑Factual inquiry, non‑conducting of‑‑ Grievance of the petitioner was that the order‑in‑original passed by the authorities was not based upon proper factual inquiry‑‑‑Petitioner contended that the authorities while passing the order had relied upon the facts of some other case which were not applicable to the case of the petitioner‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Factual inquiry based on record for purpose of adjudication had to be conducted‑‑‑Bald statement of the authorities that the case of the petitioner and of an other being identical, the order was extendable even to the petitioner, made it no order in the eye of law‑‑ Such order had violated the purpose of adjudication as well as the principle of natural justice, which required formulation of a speaking order, disposing of a case after discussion of factual position and giving judgment on such basis‑‑‑Order passed by the authorities against the petitioner was not an order on the touchstone of the standards laid for the purposes of adjudication‑‑‑Such order was perverse and was nullity in the eye of law and the same deserved to be quashed‑‑‑High Court directed the Deputy Collector Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), to re‑write the order afresh after hearing the petitioner and to dispose of the matter in accordance with the observation made by High Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.  

Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists Corporation C.C.A. Del., 113 F.2d, 703, 706 and Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co. 55 Wye. 347, 100 P.2d 124, 132 ref.

Muhammad Azhar for Petitioner.

Ahmad Sibtain Fazli for Respondents.

ORDER

Messrs Prime Chemicals through its representative has impugned an order, dated 5‑5‑2003 which has been passed by Mr. Zulfqar Younas Deputy Collector Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Lahore in Order‑in‑Original No. 10 of 2003.

2. As a matter of fact, this order‑in‑original had been passed in a case of Messrs Ramzan Bakhsh Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., who were before the said Court challenging the imposition of sale tax under the provisions of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act as amended. A copy of detailed order has been placed on the file and learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition has taken this Court through it to re‑enforce his argument that all the facts discussed in this order‑in -original pertain to Messrs Ramzan Bakhsh Textile Mills Private Limited and had nothing to do in the matter of the petitioner that is Prime Chemicals.

3. The petitioner has become aggrieved in this case because of what has been said in paragraph 22 of the order which reads as follows: ‑‑

"This order shall also apply to the following three cases being identical in nature:

4. It is stated that the provisions of that order could not by reference be applied to the case of the petitioner whose facts were distinct and separate and these had to be separately met and argued with reference to the relevant record, otherwise it is no adjudication in law.

5. It appears that Collectorate of Customs, ST & CE (Adjudication), Lahore, has been created to adjudicate upon matters which are impugned before the said forum and who has then to determine whether the order impugned before the said forum was an order which is sustainable in law or not? All this called for a factual investigation, upon which the terms of adjudication were to be based while coming to a decision.

6. To adjudicate, necessarily implies settling, a matter. This is synonymous with the word `adjudge'. The adjudicatory process may be before an administrative authority or before a Court of law. Even if it is before an administrative agency, the rights are to be adjudged after notice to parties affording opportunity of hearing and appraisal of record. The factual position and the finding are to be recorded specifically. Reference in this connection may be made to the following cases:‑‑

(i) People v. Rave, 364, III, 72, 3 N.E.2 d 972, 975.

(ii) Allegpency Ludlum Steel Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n, 501 pa. 71, 459A. 2d 1281 1221.

7. In the case of Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists Corporation, C. A. A. Del., 113 F. 2d 703, 706, adjudication is defined as hearing, after notice of legal evidence on the factual issues involved.

8. Again in the case of Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co., 55 Wye, 347, 100 p. 2d 124, 132, it was said that adjudication contemplates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

9. Obviously, a factual inquiry based on record for purposes of adjudication had to be conducted. A bare and bald statement that the case of the petitioner and one other as referred to in paragraph 22 of the order being identical, the order was extendable even to them, made this no order in the eye of law as it violated the very purpose of adjudication as well as the principle of natural justice, which requires formulation of a speaking order disposing of a case reflecting a discussion of a factual position and handing down of a judgment or d finding on such basis.

10. On the touchstone of the standards laid for purposes of adjudication since remote antiquity, we find that the order under reference and as reflected in paragraph 22 is hardly an order. It is destitute of any discussion relevant to the record of this case. It is perverse and consequently a nullity in the eye of law. It deserves to be quashed and a direction is, therefore, issued to the Deputy Collector Customs, Sales Tax and C.E. (Adjudication), Lahore, to re‑write the order afresh after hearing the petitioner and to dispose of the matter in accordance with the observations made hereinabove and to refrain from passing such orders in serious matters in such a slipshod manner.

11. With these observations, the writ petition is accepted.

M.H./P‑1/L Petition allowed.