Revisional jurisdiction barred after appeal where the same issue was already decided in the appellate order.

Section 79 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 bars suo motu revision where the order sought to be revised has already been made the subject matter of appeal, and it also prevents revisional interference on a point already raised and decided in that appeal. The High Court held that the Commissioner could not invoke revisional power after the assessment order had been considered in appeal under Section 77, especially where the Department had an available appellate remedy under Section 78. The impugned notice and consequential proceedings were quashed as contrary to the statutory bar on revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional power under Section 79 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 after the assessment order had already been the subject matter of appeal under Section 77 of that Act.

Analysis: The impugned notice proceeded on the basis that the deduction allowed in appeal was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The appellate order had already dealt with the subject matter sought to be revised, and the Department had an available remedy of appeal under Section 78. In those circumstances, Section 79(4)(b) created a statutory bar against revision of an order that had been made the subject matter of appeal, and Section 79(5) did not permit revisional interference on a point already raised and decided in appeal.

Conclusion: The impugned notice and the consequential proceedings were quashed as being contrary to the statutory bar on revisional jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The Commissioner cannot exercise suo motu revisional power under Section 79 where the order sought to be revised has already been made the subject matter of appeal and the point in question has been raised and decided in that appeal.

---