https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412555 During the transitional period after repeal of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1963, the earlier delegation of revisional power continued to operate under the saving provision in section 106(2)(c) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 until a fresh delegation was made under the successor Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax therefore had jurisdiction to issue the suo motu revisional notice under section 79(1), and the challenge on lack of authority failed. The Court also held that the notice disclosed sufficient reasons on its face for initiating revision, so the objection based on absence of recorded reasons was rejected. The writ petition failed and the interim protection was vacated. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 08:25:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412555 During the transitional period after repeal of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1963, the earlier delegation of revisional power continued to operate under the saving provision in section 106(2)(c) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 until a fresh delegation was made under the successor Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax therefore had jurisdiction to issue the suo motu revisional notice under section 79(1), and the challenge on lack of authority failed. The Court also held that the notice disclosed sufficient reasons on its face for initiating revision, so the objection based on absence of recorded reasons was rejected. The writ petition failed and the interim protection was vacated. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412555