Invalid delegation of revisional power beyond notified limits rendered the revisional order without jurisdiction

Delegation of the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power was invalid because the later delegation to the Additional Commissioner lacked the specific prior Government approval required by the Rules and was not duly gazetted. The notification also did not authorise revision of an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, as its scope was limited to orders of specified revisional or appellate officers. As the delegate acted beyond the authority conferred by the enabling notification and rules, the revisional order and consequential demand were without jurisdiction and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delegation of the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power to the Additional Commissioner was valid in the absence of prior approval of the Government and proper gazette publication, and whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 permits delegation of the Commissioner's powers subject to the restrictions prescribed by the Rules. Rule 5(2) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules bars delegation of the power under Section 79(1) without prior approval of the Government. The notification relied on for delegation referred only to an earlier approval that had been granted for a different delegation and did not satisfy the mandatory requirement for the later delegation to the Additional Commissioner. The material also showed that the notification had not been duly gazetted. In addition, the Additional Commissioner could not revise an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, since the delegation, even on its own terms, covered revision only of orders passed by specified revisional or appellate officers and not by the assessing officer in the present case.

Conclusion: The delegation and the suo motu revisional order were without jurisdiction and invalid, and the assessee's challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order and the consequential demand were set aside, and both writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegation of revisional power requiring prior governmental approval is invalid unless that approval is specifically obtained for the delegation in question, and a delegate cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction beyond the limits expressly authorised by the enabling notification and rules.

---