Revision petitions dismissed, sales tax orders upheld, factual findings justified.

The Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Commissioner of Sales Tax's orders and confirming the suo motu revision orders. The Court found the revision petitions improper as they were not maintainable against the appellate orders and concluded that the factual findings of the Revenue Authorities were justified. The sales tax revisions were dismissed with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Sales Tax Revision petitions.
2. Competency of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to exercise suo motu revision power.
3. Legitimacy of the assessment orders and the appellate orders.
4. Validity of the Appellate Authority's confirmation of the suo motu revision orders.
5. Whether the factual findings of the Revenue Authorities were justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Sales Tax Revision petitions:
The petitioner initially challenged the orders dated 08.05.2006 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which were later converted to Sales Tax Revision petitions (STREV) upon request. The Court questioned the maintainability of STREV petitions against the Appellate Orders passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 23(4)(c)(ii) of the Odisha Sales Tax Act (OST Act). It was clarified that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was competent to exercise suo motu revision power, making the Commissioner's orders appellate in nature. Therefore, the revision petitions were deemed improper and misleading, as revisions under Section 24 of the OST Act are maintainable only against Second Appeal Orders under Section 23(3).

2. Competency of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to exercise suo motu revision power:
The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was authorized to exercise suo motu revision power under Section 23(4)(a) read with Rule 80 of the OST Rules, as per Notification No.14171-I-ST-76/63-CT, dated 03.08.1963. The assessment orders for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 were framed by the Sales Tax Officer, making the Assistant Commissioner the competent authority for suo motu revision.

3. Legitimacy of the assessment orders and the appellate orders:
The Assessing Authority initially observed that the petitioner did not maintain a true account of sales and stock, leading to assessments based on a best judgment approach. The reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 12(8) of the OST Act were dropped erroneously, prompting the Assistant Commissioner to initiate suo motu revision. The Assistant Commissioner found that credit sales were not properly accounted for, leading to revised tax liabilities. The appellate orders confirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner, dismissing the appeals.

4. Validity of the Appellate Authority's confirmation of the suo motu revision orders:
The Appellate Authority upheld the suo motu revision orders, noting that the petitioner maintained only a purchase account and failed to account for credit sales adequately. The suppression of purchases was established through the examination of seized materials during a Vigilance inspection. The appellate orders emphasized that the petitioner's disclosed turnover was significantly low, justifying the suo motu revision proceedings.

5. Whether the factual findings of the Revenue Authorities were justified:
The Court noted that the findings of fact by the statutory authorities should be given due weight unless found to be based on no evidence or incorrect principles. The seized materials were relevant to the assessment years in question, and the Revenue Authorities were justified in their findings. The Court found no additional material from the petitioner to challenge the findings, concluding that the revision petitions were not maintainable and the question of law posed was actually a factual issue.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the revision petitions, stating that no grounds were made out to invoke jurisdiction under Section 24 of the OST Act. The orders passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in exercise of power under Section 23(4)(c)(ii) were upheld, confirming the suo motu revision orders based on evidence and material available on record. The sales tax revisions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---