2002 (12) TMI 236 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether after the Assistant Commissioner, as a delegatee of the power of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, has exercised revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order of the Sales Tax Officer, the Commissioner can exercise the power under the said provision to revise the same order over again? Held that - Appeal allowed. It is no doubt true that the Commissioner is not denuded of the statutory power of revision after delegation, but that, in view of the said notification, only means that he can resume that power or cancel the delegation of revisional power to the Assistant Commissioner. That, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to mean that once the orders have been examined under the revisional power by the Assistant Commissioner (the delegatee), the same orders can again be subjected to the revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the delegation of revisional power under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. Whether the Commissioner can exercise revisional power after the Assistant Commissioner has already revised an order.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner after the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the delegation of revisional power under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947:
The case involved a question regarding the delegation of revisional power under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Commissioner had delegated his revisional power to the Assistant Commissioner under section 23(4)(a) of the Act. This delegation was made through a notification specifying the powers and duties delegated to the Assistant Commissioner. The delegation was limited to revising assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer and Assistant Sales Tax Officer suo motu, provided no appeal had been filed against such orders. The Commissioner retained the power to revise orders of higher officials like the Additional Commissioner and Special Additional Commissioner. The delegation did not allow the Assistant Commissioner to revise orders passed by the Commissioner or higher officials. The delegation was clear in its scope and did not permit the Commissioner to re-exercise the delegated power over the same orders.

Issue 2: Commissioner's exercise of revisional power after Assistant Commissioner's decision:
The central issue was whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional power after the Assistant Commissioner had already revised an order. The appellant contended that once the Assistant Commissioner had exercised the revisional power, the Commissioner could not revisit the same order. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's power to revise the order had been exhausted by the Assistant Commissioner's decision. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner, despite retaining the statutory power of revision, could not re-exercise the delegated power over the same orders once they had been examined under the revisional power by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court emphasized that the delegation did not allow for a double revision of the same order by both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner.

Issue 3: Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner:
The appellant challenged the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner after the Assistant Commissioner had dropped the proceedings. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in not quashing the notice. The respondent contended that the Commissioner, despite delegation, still had the statutory power to revise orders. The Supreme Court analyzed the delegation of power and held that the Commissioner could not re-exercise the revisional power over the same orders already revised by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court set aside the order under challenge and quashed the impugned notice, allowing the writ petition. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment clarifies the interpretation of the delegation of revisional power, the limitations on the Commissioner's exercise of revisional power, and the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner.

← Previous Next →