Delegated revisional power cannot be reopened by suo motu revision once statutory finality attaches to the delegate's order.

Valid delegation of revisional power under the Orissa Sales Tax Act meant the Assistant Commissioner's revisional order was made in the exercise of the Commissioner's delegated authority. Once that revisional jurisdiction was exercised and the order attained statutory finality, the Commissioner could not invoke suo motu revisional power under rule 80 to reopen the same order. A second revision would amount to revising the Commissioner's own delegated act and would undermine the finality attached to revisional decisions under section 23(4). The revisional order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax could invoke suo motu revisional power under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 to revise an order already passed by the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of delegated revisional power under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The statutory scheme conferred revisional power on the Commissioner under section 23(4)(a), while section 23(4)(d) permitted delegation only with prior approval of the State Government. The notification delegating power to the Assistant Commissioner showed that the delegated authority had already exercised the revisional function contemplated by section 23(4)(a) read with rule 80. The Court held that delegation does not denude the delegator of all authority in the abstract, but once the revisional power had been exercised by the delegatee and the order had attained finality under section 23(4)(cc), the Commissioner could not initiate a further revisional proceeding under rule 80 against that very order. A second revision would, in substance, amount to revising the Commissioner's own delegated act and would defeat the statutory finality attached to orders under section 23(4).

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no power to revise the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of delegated revisional jurisdiction, and the challenge to the impugned revisional order succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional power under a taxing statute has been validly delegated and exercised by the delegatee, the delegator cannot thereafter use a separate suo motu revisional provision to reopen the same order once the statute attaches finality to that revisional decision.

---