TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court invalidates revision order of Addl. CST for lack of jurisdiction, emphasizes statutory compliance</h1> <h3>M/s. Maharana Supply and Co., Kotsahi, Tangi Versus State of Odisha and Others Commissioner of Sales Tax and Another</h3> M/s. Maharana Supply and Co., Kotsahi, Tangi Versus State of Odisha and Others Commissioner of Sales Tax and Another - TMI Issues: Challenge to order of Commissioner of Sales Tax under OVAT Act, Jurisdiction of Addl. CST in suo-motu revision, Validity of delegation of powers, Gazetting of notification, Jurisdiction of Addl. CST in revising order of STO, Consequential demand raised by AA.Challenge to Order of Commissioner of Sales Tax under OVAT Act:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the OVAT Act, challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax dismissing the appeal against a revision order raising a tax demand. The petitioner dealt in wood products and had deductions allowed in the original assessment order. The Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax revised the assessment order, leading to the appeal before the CST. The High Court previously disposed of a related writ petition concerning a preliminary issue.Jurisdiction of Addl. CST in Suo-Motu Revision:The petitioner raised jurisdictional issues regarding the Addl. CST's power to revise the assessment order. The petitioner argued that the delegation of powers to the Addl. CST lacked prior government approval and was not gazetted. Additionally, it was contended that the Addl. CST could not revise an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The CST rejected the plea, citing an earlier approval, but the High Court found the delegation invalid due to lack of proper approval and gazetting.Validity of Delegation of Powers and Gazetting of Notification:The Court analyzed Section 5 of the OVAT Act and Rule 5(2) of the OVAT Rules, emphasizing the requirement of prior government approval for delegation. The notification delegating powers to the Addl. CST did not meet this requirement, rendering it contrary to the law. Moreover, the notification was never gazetted, further undermining its validity.Jurisdiction of Addl. CST in Revising Order of STO:The High Court determined that the Addl. CST, at the time of passing the revision order, was functioning as the Addl. CST and not the JCST. The Addl. CST lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Sales Tax Officer, as per the notification criteria. Therefore, the revisional order was deemed without jurisdiction, leading to its setting aside.Consequential Demand Raised by AA:Given the invalidity of the suo-motu revision order, the consequential demand raised by the Assessing Authority was also quashed by the Court. Both writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed. The High Court's detailed analysis of the jurisdictional issues and the legal requirements for delegation highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in tax matters under the OVAT Act.This comprehensive summary provides an in-depth analysis of the judgment, covering all the relevant issues and legal intricacies involved in the case.
TaxTMI 