TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Revenue) by way of the impugned order dated 10th May, 2016 under Section 18(1) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 (OET Act) without jurisdiction inasmuch as an appeal filed against the Assessment Order sought to be revised, was already pending at the instance of the Assessee? ii. Is the exercise of the suo motu revisional power by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax by the impugned order dated 10th May, 2016 barred by limitation? 3. In the present case, the original assessment of the Appellant- Dealer under Section 9C of the OET Act for the period 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2008 was completed on 28th March, 2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (DCST), Bhubaneswar II Circle rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led legal position that the suo motu revisional proceeding has to be concluded not beyond five years from the original order of assessment. Section 18(2) of the OET Act reads as under: "18. Revisional powers of Commissioner.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The Commissioner shall not revise, under sub-section (1), any order, if- (i) period for filling of appeal against the order as provided under section 16 or 17 has not expired; or (ii) the order has been made a subject matter of appeal under section 16 or 17; or (iii) more than five years have expired after the order, sought to be revised, was passed. Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents, allowed the claim of exemption made by the petitioner under Section 6(2) of the Central Act and determined to refund an amount of Rs.12,814/-. But, subsequently, on receipt of objection raised by the audit party questioning grant of exemption under the Central Act, opposite party no.3 reopened the assessment, called upon the petitioner to participate in the reassessment proceeding and, by order dated 25.08.1993, disallowed the claim of exemption and demanded a sum of Rs.7,696/- under the Central Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 initiated a proceeding under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules to revise the reassessment already made, vide order dated 25.08.1993, in the y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant Rule-80 of the O.S.T. Rules. "23. Appeal and Revision xx xx xx (4) (a) Subject to such rules as may be made and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commissioner may, upon application by a dealer (or person) or on his own motion revise any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any person other than the Tribunal, appointed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 to assist him: Provided that the Commissioner shall not entertain any such application for revision if the dealer (or person) filing the same having a remedy by way of appeal under sub-section (1), or sub-section (3) did not avail of such remedy or the application is not filed within the prescribed period. xx xx xx ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 23 of the O.S.T.Act which is subject to limitation provided under Rule 80 of the Rules. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings for revision. 8. The only question which remains for determination of this Court is as to whether under Rule 80 of the Rules, revisional proceedings are to be concluded from the date of passing of the final orders passed within a period of three years sought to be revised or the proceedings if initiated within three years can be concluded beyond the period of three years. 9. For the purpose of this case, the relevant Rule 80 can be read in the manner that the Commissioner may on his own motion at any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eous. 10. That apart, the admitted position is the Assessee-Dealer had filed an appeal against the reassessment order which was pending before the First Appellate Authority and during the pendency of that appeal, the suo motu revisional power was sought to be exercised by the Additional Commissioner. This too is impermissible in law as has been held by this Court in M/s. Sarala Project Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack, W.P.(C) No. 5129 of 2016, vide Order dated 22nd December, 2022 where it was held as under: "10. The counter affidavit fails to answer to the principal ground of challenge viz., that despite there being available to the Department the remedy of an appeal in terms of Section 78 of the....