1999 (8) TMI 933 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax can revise an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the powers of revision.
2. The relevance and applicability of previous judicial decisions regarding the revision powers of the Commissioner.
3. The interpretation of delegation of powers under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax can revise an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the powers of revision:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax has the authority to revise an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. The judgment highlights that the Commissioner issued a notice under rule 80 after the Assistant Commissioner had already exercised suo motu revision powers and dropped the proceedings. The petitioner argued that once the Assistant Commissioner, as a delegatee of the Commissioner, exercised the revision powers, the Commissioner could not revise that order.

2. The relevance and applicability of previous judicial decisions regarding the revision powers of the Commissioner:
The petitioner relied on the decision in Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa [1988] 70 STC 333, where it was held that the Commissioner could not revise an order passed by a delegatee exercising the Commissioner's revision powers. The Revenue, however, argued that this decision needed reconsideration in light of observations by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Krishna Stores [1997] 104 STC 594 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa v. Halari Store [1997] 107 STC 579. The Court noted that these Supreme Court decisions were on different issues, specifically the Commissioner's power to revise appellate orders and did not directly address the issue at hand.

3. The interpretation of delegation of powers under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules:
The judgment delves into the legal interpretation of delegation. It is established that delegation does not imply a complete relinquishment of authority by the delegator. However, the Court pointed out that once the Assistant Commissioner, as a delegatee, exercised the revision powers, the Commissioner could not subsequently revise that order under rule 80. The Court emphasized that the scheme of section 23 does not provide for a second revision and that the first order passed in revision attains finality as per section 23(4)(cc). The Court concluded that the Commissioner's attempt to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner was not permissible and amounted to an attempt to review his own order, which is not allowed.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Commissioner of Sales Tax did not have the authority to revise an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the delegated revision powers. The judgment reaffirmed the legal principle that the delegator retains the power but cannot revise an order passed by the delegatee exercising the delegated powers. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside. No costs were awarded.