http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ORISSA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S. HALARI STORE ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/09/1997

BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:               THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha                Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare A.B.Diwan, Sr.  adv., and  P.N. Misra, Adv. with him for the appellants      Raju Ramachandran,  Sr.Adv., Sanjeev  Das, Rajesh, P.K. Mullick  and   Gaurab  Banerjee,  Advs.  with  him  for  the Respondents                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                       J U D G M E N T V.N. KHARE, J.      Leave granted in all the matters.      These appeals  by special  leave,  raise  the  question "whether the  Commissioner of Sales Tax, suo motu can revise under clause  (a) of  Sub-section (4)  of Section  23 of the Orissa Sales  Tax Act (in short "the Act") read with rule 80 of the  Orissa Sales  Tax Rules  (in short  "the Rules"), an appellate order  passed by  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of Sales Tax."      The respondent  herein is a registered dealer under the Act and running a wholesale business in purchase and sale of beetle nuts  at malgodown,  Cuttack.   In pursuance  to  the notices  issued   under  Section   12(4)  of  the  Act,  the respondent appeared  before the  concerned Sales Tax Officer and  produced   the  books  of  accounts  for  the  relevant assessment years  for verification.   The  Sales Tax officer rejected the  books of  accounts produced by the respondent- dealer and  completed the  assessments to  the best  of  his judgment. Feeling  aggrieved by  the same,  the  respondent- dealer  preferred   appeals  before   the  first   appellate authority, namely,  the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack, under  Section 23(1)  of the  Act.   The  appellate authority by  its orders allowed the appeals in part for the assessment year  1992-93 and in full for the assessment year 1993-94.   Thereafter, the  Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, exercising  his suo  motu  revisional  power  conferred under Section  23(4)(a) of  the Act read with rule 80 of the Rules, issued  notices dated  9.6.1995  to  the  respondent-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

dealer to  show cause  as to why should the appellate orders passed by  the Assistant  Commissioner of  Sales Tax  be not revised, the  same being  erroneous and  prejudicial to  the interest  of  the  Revenue.    It  is  at  this  stage,  the respondent-dealer challenged  the said  notices by  means of writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Office.  The contention of the respondent  dealer before  the High  Court was  that the Commissioner of  Sales Tax  has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices.   The  High Court  quashed  the  eimpugned notices and allowed the Original Jurisdiction Cases No. 4496 and  4497  of  1995.  want  of  jurisdiction  in  Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax in issuing the impugned notices to the respondent  dealer was  found by  the High  Court on two grounds.    Firstly,  the  appellate  order  passed  by  the Assistant Commissioner  of Sales Tax was not an order within the meaning  of  expression  "order  made  under  this  Act" occurring in  clause (a)  of sub-section  (4) of Section (4) (a) of  Section 23  places a  limitation on  the exercise of revisional power  by the  Commissioner when  it concerns  an appellate order.      Before we  advert to  the reasonings  given by the High Court in  allowing the  writ petition,  it is appropriate to notice the  decision of  this Court  in the case of State of Orissa and  others vs.  Krishna Stores,  [1997(3) SCC  246], wherein this  court was  called upon to interpret clause (a) of the  subject matter  for  consideration  before  us,  and unamended rule  80 of  the Rules.   In  that case  a  dealer successfully challenged  the  notice  issued  to  him  under Section 23(4)(a)  of the  Act read with unamended rule 80 of the Rules before the High Court of Orrisa on the ground that issue of  notice to  revise an  appellate order  is  without jurisdiction. This Court while interpreting Section 23(4)(a) of the  Act was  of the view that, in the context of Section 23(4) where  the words  "other than  an appellate order" are absent,  there   is  no  limitation  on  the  power  of  the Commissioner exercising  suo motu  power  as  to  revise  an appellate order.  This Court held thus:-      "under    Section     23(4)     the      Commissioner can,  inter  alia,  on      his own  motion  revise  any  order      made under this act or the Rules by      any person other than a tribunal or      an additional tribunal.  Therefore,      under    this    sub-section    the      Commissioner   is   not   expressly      prevented  from   revising  is  not      expressly prevented  from  revising      an appellate  order if  made by any      person other  than the  tribunal or      an additional tribunal".      In that  case, the  unamended rule  80  also  fell  for consideration.   The unamended  rule 80 as it stood then, is extracted below:-      "80. The  Commissioner may  of  his      own  motion,  at  any  time  within      three  years   from  the   date  of      passing  of   any  order   by   the      Assistant Sales  Tax Officer  or by      the Sales  Tax Officer  and  within      two years  from the date of passing      of  any   order   other   than   an      appellate order  by the  Additional      Commissioner,  Deputy  Commissioner      or the  Assistant Commissioner,  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    the  case  may  be,  call  for  the      record of  the proceedings in which      such order  was passed  and  revise      any such order."           (emphasis supplied)      Interpreting the unamended rule 80, this Court observed that the Commissioner is empowered to revise any order other than  an   appellate  order   passed   by   the   Additional Commissioner,   Deputy   Commissioner   or   the   Assistant Commissioner.  The said view of this Court was on account of the language  used in  the unamended rule to which expressly prohibited the  revision of  an appellate  order.   however, this Court upheld the exercise of suo motu power of revision by the  Commissioner on  the ground that the appeal filed by the dealer  was rejected  at the  threshold due  to  certain defects in the appeal.      Subsequently, rule  80 which  was the subject matter of interpretation in  the case  of State  of Orissa  v. Krishna Stores (supra)  was amended,  and the  amended  rule  80  is reproduced below:-      "80, Revision  by the  Commissioner      suo motu.      The Commissioner  may  on  his  own      motion at  any  time  within  three      years from  the date  of passing of      any order  by the Sales Tax Officer      or within  two years  from the date      Officer or  within two  years  from      the date of passing of any order by      the    Additional     Commissioner,      Special Additional  Commissioner or      Assistant Commissioner, as the case      may be,  call for  records  of  the      proceedings in which such order was      passed and if he considers that any      order passed  therein is  erroneous      in so  far as  revenue he may after      giving the dealer an opportunity of      being heard  and  after  making  or      causing to  be made such enquiry as      he deems  necessary revise any such      order :      Provided  that   the   Commissioner      shall not  revise any  order  under      this rule-      (1) where  an  appeal  against  the      order   is   pending   before   the      appellate authority under S. 23, or      (2) where time-limit for filling an      appeal  under   S.   23   has   not      expired."      In view  of deletion  of words "other than an appellate order" in the amended rule, there is no manner of doubt that under Section  23(4)(a), read  with  amended  rule  80,  the Commissioner has  suo motu  power  to  revise  an  appellate order. The  decision in  the case  of State  of  Orrisa  vs. Krishna  Stores   (supra)  read   with  amended   rule   80, substantially  resolves   the  controversy  as  regards  the Commissioner exercising  suo motu  power of  revision as  to revise under  Section 23(4) (a) of the Act read with rule 80 of the Rules, an appellate order.      Adverting to  the first  reasoning given  by  the  High Court that  the appellate  order does  not fall  within  the meaning  of  the  expression  "order  made  under  the  Act" occurring in  clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 23 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the Act,  it is  necessary to  set out the provisions of the Act which are extracted below:      "23. Appeals and revision.      (2) Within thirty days from he date      of receipt of the copy of-      (a) an  order of assessment with or      without penalty  under S.  12, 12-A      or 12-B; or      (b) an  order directing  payment of      interest under  sub.S. (4-a)  of S.      12; or      (c) an order imposing penalty under      sub-S.(3) of  S.9-B or under sub-S.      (3) of S. 11,      any dealer  or person,  as the case      may  be,  may,  in  the  prescribed      manner  appeal  to  the  prescribed      authority against such order:      Provided that  no appeal  shall  be      entertained by  the said  authority      unless he  is satisfied  that  such      amount of  tax as the appellant may      admit to  be due  from him has been      paid;      Provided    further     that    the      prescribed authority  may admit the      appeal  after   the  period  herein      before specified if it is satisfied      that the  appellant had  sufficient      cause for not preferring the appeal      within the said period.      (2) Subject to such rules as may be      made  or   procedure  as   may   be      prescribed,      the      appellate      authority,  in   disposing  of  any      appeal under sub.S(1), may-      (a)  confirm,  reduce,  enhance  or      annual  the   assessment   or   the      penalty or interest, if any; or      (b) set aside the assessment or the      penalty or  interest, if  any,  and      direct the  assessing authority  to      pass  a   fresh  order  after  such      further enquiry as may be directed.      (3) (a)  Any dealer, or as the case      may  be,   the  State   Government,      dissatisfied  with   an   appellate      order  made   under  sub.S.(2)  may      within sixty  days from the date of      receipt of  such  order  prefer  an      appeal in  the prescribed manner to      the Tribunal against such order :      Provided that  an appeal under this      clause may  be admitted  after  the      aforesaid period  o limitation,  if      the Tribunal  is satisfied that the      appellant had  sufficient cause for      not preferring  the  appeal  within      such period.      (b)  The   dealer,  or   the  State      Government as  the case  may be  on      receipt of  notice that  an  appeal      has been preferred under C1.(a) may      notwithstanding   that   the   said      dealer or  the State Government may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    not  have   appealed  against  such      order or  any part  thereof, within      sixty days  of the  service of  the      notice file  a memorandum  of cross      objections  and   such   memorandum      shall  be   disposed  of   by   the      Tribunal as  if it  were an  appeal      presented within time under C1.(a).      (c) While  disposing of  an  appeal      under this sub-section the Tribunal      shall have  the same powers subject      to  the   same  conditions  as  are      enumerated  in  sub.S.(2)  and  any      order passed under this sub-section      shall, except as otherwise provided      in S. 24, be final.      (4) (a)  Subject to  such rules  as      may be  made and  for reasons to be      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-S.      (3) of S. 3 to assist him:      Provided  that   the   Commissioner      shall  not   entertain   any   such      application  for  revision  if  the      dealer or  the persons  filing  the      same having  a  remedy  by  way  of      appeal under  sub-S.   (3) did  not      avail  of   such  remedy   or   the      application is not filed within the      prescribed period.      Explanation.     Any      provision      contained  elsewhere  in  this  Act      which provides for determination of      any specific matter shall not debar      the Commissioner  from  determining      such  matter  in  exercise  of  the      powers  conferred  upon  him  under      this sub-section.      A  perusal  of  the  aforesaid  provisions  shows  that Section 23 of the Act deals with appeals and revision.  Sub- section (i)  thereof provides  that any dealer or person may prefer an appeal against the order of assessment or an order directing payment  of interest or an order imposing penalty. Sub-section (2)  of Section 23 deals with power of appellate authority in  disposing  of  appeals  preferred  under  sub- section (1).   Sub-section  (3)(a) deals  with second appeal which enables  any dealer  or State  Government, as the case may be,  to prefer  appeal to  the State  Sales Tax Tribunal against the  appellate order.   Section  23(4)(a) deals with the revisional power of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which may be  either suo  motu or  at the  instance of a dealer or person against  y order  passed under the Act. The question, therefore,  which   requires  consideration  is  whether  an appellate order  passed under  sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the  Act comes  within the  ambit of  the expression "any order made  under the  Act" occurring in Section 23(4)(a) of the Act.   The  language used  in Section 23(4)(a) is plain, simple and  there is no ambiguity in it.  A plain reading of Section 23(4)(a)  Shows that  the expression "any order made under the  Act" is  of a wise connotation and it includes an assessment order as well as an appellate order  passed under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

the Act.   This  construction placed  on the said expression neither runs  contrary to the scheme envisaged in Section 23 of the  Act nor it leads to any undesirable consequences, as observed by  the High  Court.   We are,  therefore,  of  the opinion  that   under  Section  23(4)(a)  of  the  Act,  the Commissioner  on  his  own  motion  can  revise  any  order, including an appellate order made under the Act or the Rules by a person other than the tribunal or additional tribunal.      So far  as the second reasoning given by the High Court that the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 23 of  the Act  places limitation  on the Commissioner’s suo motu revisional  powers to  revise  an  appellate  order  is concerned, a  reading of  the aforesaid  proviso would  show that  the   limitation  on   the  revisional  power  of  the Commissioner comes  is only  where a dealer or person filing the revision  having a  remedy by  way of  appeal under sub- section (3)  of Section 23 or the Act, did not avail of such remedy.     However,  it  does  not  curtail  the  suo  motu revisional power  of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an appellate  order passed  under the  act.   The proviso to Section 23(4)(a)  contemplates that  the Commissioner  shall note exercise any revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a dealer or person when he has a remedy  by way of an appeal under sub-section  (3) of  Section 23 of the act.  Thus, the Commissioner is  not required  to entertain  an  application under Section  23(4)(a) of  the Act  if the dealer of person instead of  filing an  appeal before the appellate authority has invoked  revisional jurisdiction  of  the  Commissioner. But, the  same is  not the  position where  the Commissioner decides to  exercise his suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate  order.   Significantly, the  words "on his own motion" occurring  in the enactment are conspicuously absent in the  proviso.  Normally, a proviso is enacted o carve out something special out of the general enactment or to qualify what is  in the  enactment.   By enacting  the  proviso  the legislature has  excluded the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner Sales  Tax to  revise  an  appellate  order  if invoked at  the instance  of a  dealer or  person when  such dealer or  person has  a remedy  by way  of  an  appeal.  As noticed earlier, the limitation on the suo motu power of the Commissioner as  to revise  an appellate  order has not been expressly provided  in the  proviso.    In  absence  of  any expressed provisions, no limitation on suo motu power of the Commissioner to  revise an  appellate order  can be implied. We, accordingly  hold that the provisions of proviso to sub- section (4)(a)  of Section 23 of the act do not prohibit the Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate order.      For the  foregoing reasons,  we are  satisfied that the High Court  fell in  error in  quashing the impugned notices and allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein.  We accordingly set  aside the   order  and judgment of the High Court dated  12.2.1996 in  O.J.C.. Nos.  4496 &  4497/95 and allow the appeals.  There shall be no order as to costs.      In view  of the  decision in  Civil Appeal  Nos......of 1997 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 23581 and 23972/1996) are also allowed, with no order as to costs.