COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ORISSA AND ANR. versus M/S HALARI STORE ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 26-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ORISSA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
M/S HALARI STORE ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
B 
Sales Tax: 
Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947-0rissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (as amended 
in 1976)-Section 23 (4)(a) & Proviso thereto-Rule BO-Commissioner of C 
Sales Tax-Suo motu power of revision-Held, exercisable even in respect of 
appellate order-Words "any order made under this Act" occurring in Section 
23 (4)(a) cover an appellate order-The proviso to section 23 (4)(a) does 
not prohibit suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate order. 
Words & Phrases : 
Words "any order made under this Act"-Meaning of-In the context 
of Section 23 (4)(a) of the Orissa sales tax Act, 1947. 
The respondent was a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales tax Act. 
D 
In pursnance of notice under section 12( 4) of the Act, the respondent prodnced E: 
the books of accounts for verification before the Sales Tax Officer. STO 
rejected the books of accounts and completed the assessment to the best of 
his judgement. Feeling aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before the 
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who allowed the appeals in part in 
respect of the assessment year 1992-93 and in full in respect of the assessment F 
year 1993-94. Thereafter the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, in 
exercise of his suo motu revisional power under Section 23(4)(a) of the Act 
read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales tax Rules issued notice to the respondent 
for revision of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. 
The notices were challenged before the High Court by the respondent and 
the High Court quashed the notices. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : I. In view of the deletion of the words "ouier than an appellate 
order" from Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales tax Rules (as amended in 1976), 
there is no manner of doubt that under Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales H 
311 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Tax Act, read with amended Rule 80, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has suo 
motu power to revise an appellate order. A plain reading of Section 23(4) (a) 
shows that the expression "any order made under this Act" is of a wide 
connotation and it includes an assessment order as well as an appellate order 
passed under the Act. This construction neither runs contrary. to the scheme 
B envisaged in Section 23 of the Act nor it leads to any undesirable 
consequences. [375-F-H] 
State of Orissa v. Krishna Stores, [1997] 3 SCC 246, referred to. 
2. A reading to the proviso to Section 23(4)(a) would show that the 
limitation on the revisional power of CST comes in only where a dealer or 
C person filing the revision having a remedy by way of appeal under Section 
23(3) of the Act, did not avail of such remedy. However, it does not curtail the 
suo motu revisional power of CST to revise an appellate order passed under 
the Act. Significantly, the words "on his own motion" occurring in the 
enactment are conspicuously absent in the proviso. Normally, a proviso is 
D enacted to 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 CST 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. The limitation on the suo motu power of CST to 
revise an appellate order has not been expressly provided in the proviso. In 
E tbe absence of any express provisions, no limitation on suo motu power of 
CST (o revise an appellate order can be implied. !3i8-F-H; 319-A-B) 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6717-18 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and order dated 12.2.96 of the Orissa High Court in 
O.J.C. No. 4496of1995. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 6719, 6720/1997. 
A.B. Diwan and P.N. Misra for the Appellants. 
Raju Ramachandran, Sanjeev Das, Rajesh, P.K Mullick and Gaurab 
Banerjee for the ~espondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
V.N. KHARE, J. Leave granted in all the matters. 
COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. HALARI STORE [V.N. KHARE, J.] 
313 
These appeals by special leave, raise the question "whether the A 
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 "t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.