M/S. OCL INDIA LTD. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S. OCL INDIA LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947/0rissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947: 
S.23(4)(a)lr.80-Revisional power of Commissioner-Delegated under 
C Notification No. l-ST-76173 14271 dated 3-8-1993 to and exercised by Assistant 
Commissioner-However, the proceedings were dropped-Later Commissioner 
exercising the revisional power uls. 23(4)(a) and r.80, again issued show 
cause notice to assessee to enhance the turnover determined by Sales Tax 
Officer-Held, in regard to the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer, after 
I) the delegation, the Assistant Commissioner was competent to revise and, in 
fact, he did exercise the power to revise the order of the Sales Tax Officer-
Thus, the power of the Commissioner has been exhausted by the Assistant 
Commissioner and the Commissioner cannot exercise the delegated power 
over again-Administrative Law-Delegation of power. 
E 
State of Orissa v, Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, 
Cuttack, 119981 7 SCC 162, relied on. 
J.C. Budharaja v. State of Orissa and Ors., 118 STC 140 approved. 
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Halari Store, 107 STC 579 and State of 
F Orissa v. Krishna Stores, 104 STC 594, distinguished. 
Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa, (1988) 70 STC 333, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8534 of2002. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.2002 of the Orissa High Court 
H 
in OJC No. 930/98. 
V.A. Bobde, Ashok Parija, K.K. Lahiri, Gaurav Kejriwal and Mrs. Sumita 
Mukherjee for the Appellant. 
496 
M/S. OCL INDIA LTD. v. STATE 
497 
D.A. Dave and Mrs. Kirti Mishra for the Respondent. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave is granted. 
The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, which B 
arises from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa in 
O.J.C. No. 930of1998, dated July 22, 2002, is: 
"Whether after the Assistant Commissioner, as a de legatee of the 
power of the Commissioner Sales Tax, under Section 23(4)(a) of the 
Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax C 
Rules, 1947, has exercised revisionaljurisdiction in respect of an order 
of the Sales Tax Officer, the Commissioner can exercise the power 
under the said provision to revise the same order over again?" 
The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly noted here. 
D 
The appellant-assessee, a company registered under the Companies 
Act, 1956, is a manufacturer of cement and refractory products. It is a registered 
dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). For the 
Assessment Year 1986-87, the Sales Tax Officer passed an order of assessment 
under the Central Sales Tax Act on October 20, 1987. On December 13, 1995, 
the Assistant Commissioner, in exercise of the delegated power, issued a E 
show cause notice to the a~sessee to revise the order passed by the Sales 
Tax nfficer. However, by order dated January 3, 1996, he dropped the 
proceedings. While so, on January 2, 1998, the Commissioner, purporting to 
exercise the revisional power under Section 23(4)(a) of the Act and Rule 80 
of the Rules, issued notice to show cause as .to why the turnover determined p 
by the Sales Tax officer for the Assessment Year 1986-87 should not be 
enhanced. Challenging the validity of the said notice, the appellant filed O.J.C. 
No. 930/98 before a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa. The High 
Court dismissed the writ petition on July 22, 2002 which is under challenge 
in this appeal. 
Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, has contended 
!hat once the Commissioner has delegated his revisional power and the 
Assistant Commissioner-delegatee has exercised the said power and decided 
G 
the matter, it was not open for the Commissioner to exercise the very same 
power and, therefore, the High Court has erred in not quashing the impugned H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A show cause notice issued by him, Mr. Dave, the learned senior counsel 
appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that though the Commissioner has 
delegated power, he was not denuded of the statutory power so he could 
have stiil exercised the power under the said provisions. 
Under Section 23(4}(a) of the Act, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has 
B power, either suo motu or on an application by a dealer or a person, to revise 
any orders made und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.