Independent revisional jurisdiction survives delegation: Commissioner may initiate suo motu revision despite earlier subordinate revision

The Commissioner's independent suo motu revisional power under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was not displaced merely because the Assistant Commissioner had earlier exercised delegated revisional authority. The scheme of the Act and Rules treated the Commissioner as the supervising authority, with the Assistant Commissioner remaining a subordinate officer despite delegation. As rule 80 authorised revision of orders passed by specified subordinate authorities where revenue interests were prejudiced, the earlier subordinate revision did not exhaust or bar the Commissioner's own jurisdiction. The notice under rule 80 was therefore valid as a commencement of revision, leaving the assessee free to contest the proceedings on all available grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional power under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 to revise an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner who had earlier exercised delegated revisional power under the same rule.

Analysis: The scheme of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Rules showed that the Commissioner remained the supervising authority and the Assistant Commissioner continued to be a subordinate officer despite delegation. Rule 80 empowered the Commissioner to revise any order of the specified subordinate authorities if it was prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The earlier exercise of revisional power by the Assistant Commissioner did not exhaust or bar the Commissioner's own statutory revisional jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the notice under rule 80 only initiated the revisional process and that the assessee would still have the opportunity to contest the proceedings on all available grounds.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision under rule 80 against the Assistant Commissioner's order and the notice was not vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegation of revisional power to a subordinate authority does not curtail the Commissioner's independent statutory power of suo motu revision under the Act and the Rules unless the statute expressly so provides.

---