HALARI STORE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against the notices dated June 9, 1995 (annexure 1) issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cuttack - opposite part No. 2 under section 23 (4) (a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") for suo motu revision of the first appellate orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack I Range, Cuttack. The impugned notices in both the cases are identically worded. O. J. C. No. 4496 of 1995 relates to the assessment year ending 1993-94, the order of assessment of the concerned Sales Tax Officer is dated June 22, 1994 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed in appeal is dated September 14, 1994. O. J. C. No. 4497 of 1995 relates to the assessment year ending 1992-93, the order of assessment of the the Sales Tax Officer is dated August 6, 1993 and the order of Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax passed in appeal is dated May 3, 1994. Parties in both the cases being common and the point involved being the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PETITIONER M/s. Halari Store is a registered dealer under the Act. It carries on wholesale business in purchase and sale of betel-nuts at Malgodown, Cuttack. In response to notice issued under section 12 (4) of the Act, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Sales Tax Officer and produced the books of accounts for the relevant years of verification. According to the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer without properly examining the purchase and sale accounts, purchase invoices and sales memos rejected the books of accounts illegally completed the assessment to the best of his judgment. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner filed appeals before the first appellate authority, i. e. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack I Range, Cuttack under section 23 (1) of the Act. The said appellate authority by making elaborate discussion in the orders referred to above allowed the appeal in part for the year 1992-93 and in full for the year 1993-94. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Revenue did not choose to challenge the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax by filing second appeals within the time stipulated and, instead, has resorted to unauthorised means by issuing the impugned notices through the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax to nullify the first appellate orders which have become final.

(3.) SHRI A. K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who is the competent authority to decide the first appeals has disposed of the appeals and those appellate orders could have been challenged by the Revenue by filing second appeals as provided in section 23 (3) of the Act and without taking recourse to the same, the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax is not competent to invoke suo motu jurisdiction under section 23 (4) of the Act by issuing the impugned notices and set at naught the orders of the first appellate authority which have otherwise become final.