Revisional power cannot bypass final appellate orders where the statute provides a separate appeal and limits revision.

The Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is confined to orders of specified subordinate officers and may be used only where the order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Where the statute provides a separate appeal from the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to the Tribunal and declares the appellate order final subject only to statutory exceptions, revision cannot be used to bypass that appellate framework. Notices attempting to reopen such appellate orders outside those limits were held inconsistent with the Act and were quashed, leaving the appellate orders undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to reopen orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, when such orders were appealable under Section 48(2) and were stated to be final under Section 48(7).

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 49(3) is confined to orders passed by persons appointed under Section 3 to assist the Commissioner or by officers to whom powers have been delegated, and it can be exercised only where the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The appellate scheme under Section 48 separately provides an appeal from the order of the appellate authority to the Tribunal, while Section 48(7) declares the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner final subject only to the statutory exceptions. Since the revenue did not challenge the appellate orders before the Tribunal and instead attempted to reopen them by revision after a substantial delay, the notices were held to be contrary to the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The notices issued by the Commissioner under Section 49(3) were not legally sustainable and were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the impugned revisional notices were set aside, leaving the appellate orders undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a distinct appellate remedy against an appellate order and treats that order as final subject to specified exceptions, the Commissioner cannot bypass that remedy and invoke suo motu revision in a manner inconsistent with the statutory limits on revisional power.

---