2023 (5) TMI 1316 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking to quash the revisional order - Seeking restraint on opposite parties from collecting the penalty as involved in the revisional order - HELD THAT - The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) has made a suo motu revision against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur II Circle, Sambalpur, but on perusal of the provisions of law, it appears that he has no authority to do so. This question had come up before this Court for consideration in the case of M/s. Maharana Supply and Co. 2022 (12) TMI 1138 - ORISSA HIGH COURT , wherein at paragraph-14, this Court observed Admittedly, in the present case, it is the STO who has passed the assessment order under section 42 of the OVAT Act which was sought to be revised by the Addl. CST. Therefore, even in terms of the notification dated 5th June, 2018 the Addl. CST lacked the jurisdiction to revise the order of the STO. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) dated 22-6-2017 under Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) to make a suo motu revision under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and the legality of the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) and the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST.

Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal):
The petitioner sought to quash the revisional order dated 22-6-2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) and the order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST dated 6-3-2019. The petitioner's counsel contended that the revisional order was without jurisdiction as no suo motu revision can be made by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The counsel relied on a previous judgment of the Court to support this argument. The Standing Counsel for Revenue also conceded that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) lacked the power to make a suo motu revision under the relevant notification.

Court's Decision:
After considering the arguments and reviewing the provisions of the law, the Court found that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) did not have the authority to make a suo motu revision against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that the Additional Commissioner was not functioning within the scope of his jurisdiction when making the revisional order. Consequently, the Court held that the revisional order and the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST could not be sustained in the eye of law and quashed both orders.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court quashed the revisional order dated 22-6-2017 and the order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST dated 6-3-2019. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.