TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 18(1) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 could be exercised when an appeal against the assessment order was already pending. (ii) Whether the impugned exercise of revisional power was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 18(1) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 could be exercised when an appeal against the assessment order was already pending.
Analysis: Section 18(2) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 expressly bars revision where the order sought to be revised has already been made the subject matter of an appeal. The pendency of an appeal against the reassessment order, therefore, operated as a statutory prohibition on concurrent suo motu revision. The revisional authority could not proceed while the appellate remedy was still pending.
Conclusion: The exercise of suo motu revisional power was impermissible and is answered against the Department.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned exercise of revisional power was barred by limitation.
Analysis: Section 18(2)(iii) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 requires revision to be completed within five years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The authority initiated revision after the statutory period had expired. The principle earlier applied to analogous revisional provisions under the sales tax law also supports the requirement that revision must attain finality within the prescribed period, and not merely be initiated in time.
Conclusion: The revisional proceeding was barred by limitation and is answered against the Department.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on both grounds, the revisional order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A suo motu revisional power cannot be exercised where the order sought to be revised is already the subject matter of a pending appeal, and revision must be concluded within the statutory period of limitation prescribed for such proceedings.
TaxTMI 
