Suo motu revisional power under sales tax law extends to appellate orders unless the proviso expressly bars it.

The expression "any order made under the Act" in Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was construed broadly to include appellate orders passed under Section 23(2), and the amended Rule 80 reinforced that revisional power by expressly covering orders of the Assistant Commissioner. The deletion of earlier words excluding appellate orders removed any basis for limiting the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction. The proviso to Section 23(4)(a) was held to restrict revision only when sought by a dealer who had an available appellate remedy but did not use it; it did not curtail the Commissioner's suo motu power. Accordingly, appellate orders could be revised on the Commissioner's own motion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax could, under Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, suo motu revise an appellate order passed under Section 23(2), and whether the proviso to Section 23(4)(a) barred such exercise.

Analysis: The expression "any order made under the Act" in Section 23(4)(a) was held to be of wide amplitude and to include appellate orders passed under Section 23(2). The amended Rule 80 also expressly enabled revision of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the deletion of the earlier words excluding appellate orders removed any basis for reading down the revisional power. The proviso to Section 23(4)(a) was held to restrict revision only when invoked at the instance of a dealer who had an available appellate remedy and had not availed it. Since the proviso did not contain words limiting suo motu action, no such restriction could be implied on the Commissioner's own motion.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to suo motu revise the appellate order, and the proviso did not prohibit such revision.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional notices failed, and the Revenue's position on the scope of suo motu revision under the Act was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order falls within the expression "any order made under the Act" in Section 23(4)(a), and a proviso that restricts revision at the instance of an aggrieved dealer does not curtail the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power unless such limitation is stated expressly.

---