The companytention of the respondent dealer before the High Court was that the Commissioner of Sales Tax has numberjurisdiction to issue the impugned numberices.
In pursuance to the numberices issued under Section 12 4 of the Act, the respondent appeared before the companycerned Sales Tax Officer and produced the books of accounts for the relevant assessment years for verification.
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.
It is at this stage, the respondent dealer challenged the said numberices by means of writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Orissa.
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 companyferred under Section 23 4 a of the Act read with Rule 80 of the Rules, issued numberices dated 9.6.1995 to the respondent dealer to show cause as to why should the appellate orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax be number revised, the same being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The Sales Tax Officer rejected the books of accounts produced by the respondent dealer and companypleted the assessments to the best of his judgment.
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.
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 Subsection 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.
