TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax had jurisdiction to invoke suo motu revisional power under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 to revise an order passed by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of delegated revisional power under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the finality attached to orders passed under section 23(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 barred a second revision against an order already passed by the delegated revisional authority.
Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax had jurisdiction to invoke suo motu revisional power under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 to revise an order passed by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of delegated revisional power under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Analysis: The revisional power under section 23(4)(a) was delegated to the Additional Commissioner by notification, and the order sought to be reopened had already been passed by that delegatee in exercise of the very revisional jurisdiction conferred by the Commissioner. The scheme of the Act and the Rules did not contemplate that the Commissioner, after delegation and exercise of that power by the delegatee, could again invoke rule 80 to revise the same matter. A delegation does not denude the delegator of authority in the abstract, but the particular statutory framework here attached finality to orders passed under section 23(4), and the Commissioner was not initiating a fresh revision under rule 79.
Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Additional Commissioner under rule 80.
Issue (ii): Whether the finality attached to orders passed under section 23(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 barred a second revision against an order already passed by the delegated revisional authority.
Analysis: Section 23(4)(cc) declared that orders passed under the sub-section were final subject to appeal, and the appellate structure did not provide for a second revision after the revisional order of the delegatee. The Court held that allowing the Commissioner to reopen such an order would amount to an impermissible second revision and would defeat the statutory finality attached to the first revisional order. The impugned notices were therefore without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.
Conclusion: A second revision was barred, and the impugned notices were invalid.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded because the Commissioner's notices were ultra vires, the earlier revisional order of the Additional Commissioner could not be reopened, and the petitioners were entitled to consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute delegates revisional power to an authority and the delegated authority exercises that power, the original revising authority cannot again invoke a separate suo motu revisional provision to reopen the same order when the statute attaches finality to orders passed under that revisional scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
