M/S. R.P.Industry vs. The Sales Tax Officer,Sambalpur
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 09.05.2023
Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the revisional order dated 22.06.2017 passed by opposite party no.2 under Annexure-3, the order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST dated 06.03.2019 under Annexure-4 and to restrain the opposite parties from collecting the penalty as involved in the revisional order under Annexure-3. 4. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset contended that the order impugned under Annexure-3 is without juri iction and as such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further contended that against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur II Circle, Sambalpur, no suo motu revision can be made by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal). Therefore, the order so passed cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate the same, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Maharana Supply & Co., Kotsahi, Tangi v. State of Odisha and others and batch, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 11311 of 2019 and batch disposed of on 20.12.2022. ARUN KUMAR MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2023.05.10 16:45:22 +05'30'
Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue conceded that in view of the notification issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha dated 05.06.2018, the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) has no power to make a suo motu revision under Section 79 (1) of Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears 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. (supra), wherein at paragraph-14, this Court observed as follows:-
“The observation of the CST in the impugned order that the Addl. CST, at the time when the suo motu revision order was passed on 6th December 2018, was still exercising the powers of the JCST is also not factually correct. The notification promoting the JCST as Addl. CST and posting him on promotion was issued on 2nd May, 2018 itself. Therefore, at the time when the impugned suo motu revisional power was passed by the Addl. CST he was functioning as Addl. CST and not as JCST. Even in terms of the notification dated 5th June, 2018 the Addl. CST could have exercised the suo motu revisional power only if the order under revision was passed by the JCST or Dy. CST. 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 juri iction to revise the order of the STO.”
In view of the aforesaid fact and law, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) dated 22.06.2017 under Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST under Annexure-4 in appeal against the said order passed in revision, also cannot
be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Arun
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.