BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice issued by Mamlatdar, Nadiad on 17-11-1983 and the subsequent orders passed and confirmed by the authorities under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax act, 1977 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 66,139. 80 ps. by way of entertainment tax and equal amount by way of penalty. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of "sohang Cinema" situated at Petlad, kheda District and is exhibiting pictures for the entertainment of the viewers. The petitioner was granted licence under the provisions of the Gujarat entertainment Tax Act, 1977 (for short the Act) and Gujarat Entertainment tax Rules, 1979 (for short the Rules ). ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the surprise visit made by the Commissioner of entertainment Tax at the Cinema of the petitioner on 29/08/1983, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Mamlatdar at Nadiad on 17- 11-1983. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that various irregularities including sale of duplicate tickets etc. had been committed by the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why penalty and re-assessment of escaped tax should not be levied. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 29-11-1983. After hearing the petitioner, the learned Mamlatdar at Nadiad was pleased to pass the impugned order on 1-2-1984 at Annexure d whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 66,139. 80 ps. by way of entertainment tax and rs. 66,139. 80 ps. by way of penalty. Being aggrieved by the said order, of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, nadiad. The petitioner lost in the appeal. The Collector, Nadiad decided the appeal on 18-4-1984 against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner carried it further in revision before the Commissioner of Entertainment tax. However, he failed in the revision also. The revision came to be dismissed on 16-6-1986. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed Special Civil application No. 4301 of 1986 before this Court. After hearing the parties, the matter was remanded to the Government for rehearing of the revision. The order was passed on 23-2-1987. Pursuant to the direction of this court, the Government had reheard the revision and ultimately the order of the Mamlatdar, Nadiad passed on 1-2-1984 came to be confirmed. Hence the present petition. After hearing the parties, the matter was remanded to the Government for rehearing of the revision. The order was passed on 23-2-1987. Pursuant to the direction of this court, the Government had reheard the revision and ultimately the order of the Mamlatdar, Nadiad passed on 1-2-1984 came to be confirmed. Hence the present petition. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised multi-lateral attach against the action of the authorities under the Act. One of the contentions raised as that the show cause notice was not issued by the appropriate and authorised person or authority. In that it is contended that the Mamlatdar at Nadiad, who has issued the show cause notice, was not authorised or having jurisdiction over the area of Petlad where the Cinema of the petitioner is situated. Therefore it is contended that the show cause notice dated 17-11-1983 issued by the Mamlatdar at Nadiad and subsequently order passed by him on 1-2-1984 are without jurisdiction and it is further urged that therefore impugned order passed on 1- 2-1984 by the Mamlatdar at Nadiad is a nullity. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that it is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the Mamlatdar at Kheda was authorised for the entire area of Kheda District only by virtue of office order dated 28-11-1985. The show cause notice in question was issued on 17-11-1983. The impugned order was passed on 1-2-1984. Therefore it is very clear from the record that the Mamlatdar at Nadiad was not authorised under the provisions of Sec. HA (l) (a) (iii) of the act at the relevant point of time, i. e. , on the days of show cause notice and impugned order. Of course, this point is raised for the first time before us. However, it may be mentioned that this being a pure question of law and goes to the root of the matter, it has got to be considered even in the present petition. ( 6 ) IN view of the admitted facts, it becomes explicit that the impugned show cause notice at Annexure a and the impugned order of Mamlatdar of Nadiad at Annexure d were passed without any authority of law. With the result, the impugned order would be rendered a nullity. The appointment of Mamlatdar at Nadiad was even de facto was not there much less de jure. With the result, the impugned order would be rendered a nullity. The appointment of Mamlatdar at Nadiad was even de facto was not there much less de jure. In fact, Mamlatdar at Nadiad exercised power under the Act as an intruder with the result that the actions taken by him were without any authority of law rendering the impugned order passed by him on 1-2-1984 illegal. ( 7 ) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader was specifically asked to state as to whether any authorisation for taking action under Sec. 11a of the Act had been given to the Mamlatdar at Nadiad at the relevant point of time for the local area of Petlad. In response to the same he has fairly stated that except the order of the Government passed on 28-11-1985, no such authorisation or delegation was made to Mamlatdar at Nadiad under the Act. Authorities for implementation of the Act are prescribed under Sec. 11a of the Act. The relevant part of Sec. 11a reads as under :"11a. (1) (a) For carrying out the purposes of this Act, the State Government may appoint - (i) an officer to be the Commissioner of Entertainment Tax for the whole of the State of Gujarat; (ii) The Collector of a District or any other officer, not below the rank of a collector, to he the Collector of Entertainment Tax for each District; and (iii) such number of other officers and persons (with suitable designations) as the State Government thinks necessary. (b) An Officer appointed under paragraph (iii) of clause (a) shall, within the limits of such area, exercise such powers and duties conferred or imposed on any other officer by or under this Act, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. "it is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid provision that the state Government is competent to make an appointment of an officer to be commissioner of the Entertainment Tax for whole of the State of Gujarat and could also appoint the Collector of a district or any other officer not below the rank of the Collector, as the Collector of Entertainment Tax for each district, and could also appoint such number of other officers and persons with suitable designations as the State Government thinks necessary. However, it is also very clear from clause (b) that the Government has to appoint an officer under paragraph (iii) of clause (a) of Sec. 11a (1) and has to specify the limits of area, the extent of powers and duty conferred under the Act. The Mamlatdar of Nadiad was not appointed or delegated power for area of Petlad at the relevant point of time. Therefore, this is a case of no appointment and not defective appointment. In view of this position, the Mamlatdar, at Nadiad, was totally a stranger and intruder and was not an officer authorised by the State Government in so far as exercise of powers under Sec. lla (l) (a) (iii) is concerned. With the result, the impugned show cause notice issued by him on 17-11-1983 and the resultant order passed by him on 1-2-1984 would be rendered illegal and nullity. Any order passed by an officer not authorised would be illegal and such an order even cannot be protected under the doctrine of "de facto" as there was no appointment as such under the law for implementation of the provisions of the Act. ( 8 ) NEEDLESS to mention that once an order in void ab initio or a nullity it remains a nullity even if it is confirmed or modified or annulled by higher forum. It is settled proposition of law that once an order or a decision of an inferior Court or Tribunal is rendered void, it should a fortiori have the same nullifying consequence in case of an order or decision of the superior Court as well. This preposition is very well settled in a decision of this Court in the case of East India Co. v. Official Liquidator, Raj Ratna Mills, reported in (1970) xi GLR 457. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, it becomes crystal clear that the impugned show cause notice and the assessment order passed by the Mamlatdar at Nadiad on 1-2-1984 and finally confirmed by the Government in revision on 31-3-1987 are void ab initio. Therefore, the aforesaid contention is required to be accepted and the present petition is required to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the impugned show cause notice and the order of Mamlatdar at Nadiad which was finally confirmed by the Government in revision are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed to that extent. Therefore, the aforesaid contention is required to be accepted and the present petition is required to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the impugned show cause notice and the order of Mamlatdar at Nadiad which was finally confirmed by the Government in revision are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed to that extent. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .