Payment of assessed tax does not waive revision rights, and uncommunicated pre-amendment self-assessment cannot be reopened.

Payment of assessed tax after the impugned assessment did not waive the right to pursue revision where the statutory scheme required payment pending revision and preserved refund of any excess amount, so the delay objection failed and condonation was allowed. For self-assessments filed before 1 October 2015, reopening under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained unless acceptance had been formally communicated or acknowledged by the department; in the absence of either, the reassessment was held unsustainable. The revisional challenge therefore succeeded and the impugned order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payment of the assessed tax after alleged communication of the impugned order waived the right to seek revision and prevented condonation of delay. (ii) Whether a self-assessment filed prior to 1 October 2015, which was neither formally communicated as accepted nor acknowledged by the department, could be reopened under section 43(1) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Issue (i): Whether payment of the assessed tax after alleged communication of the impugned order waived the right to seek revision and prevented condonation of delay.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required payment of tax in accordance with the assessment order even when a revision petition was filed, and the proviso preserved the revision remedy by making any consequential excess payment refundable upon success in revision. The Court also noted that the delay report suggested filing within time on the basis of the certified copy. On that footing, payment of the demanded tax did not amount to waiver of the revisional remedy and did not bar condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The objection based on waiver and delay was rejected, and the delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a self-assessment filed prior to 1 October 2015, which was neither formally communicated as accepted nor acknowledged by the department, could be reopened under section 43(1) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Analysis: The Court followed the earlier coordinate Bench view, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, that for tax periods prior to 1 October 2015, self-assessment could not be treated as accepted unless there was formal communication or departmental acknowledgment. In the present case, there was no dispute that such acceptance had neither been communicated nor acknowledged. On that basis, the reopening and reassessment could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held unsustainable and the answer to the referred question was in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned order was set aside and quashed, and the revisional challenge was upheld on merits after condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory regime requires acceptance of self-assessment to be formally communicated or acknowledged, reopening cannot be sustained in the absence of such acceptance for pre-amendment tax periods, and payment of the assessed tax in compliance with the order does not waive the right to revision when the statute preserves that remedy.

---