Invalid delegation of powers and lack of jurisdiction of the Addl. CST under the OVAT Act.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The challenge in W.P. (C) 11311 of 2019 is to an order dated 8th March, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha (CST) whereby the appeal filed by the present Petitioner-Assessee under Section 79 (7) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) against the suo-motu revision order dated 12th July, 2018 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Addl.CST), Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act raising demand of Rs.7,99,848/- for the tax period 1st April, 2014 to 30th September, 2015 was dismissed. The challenge in the companion W.P. (C) 22064 of 2019 is to the consequential demand raised by the Assessing Authority (AA).

2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Department.

3. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is a dealer registered under the OVAT Act, and deals in sale of sized wood, logs and waste of wood cuts. Pursuant to a tax audit conducted under Section 41 of the OVAT Act, the AA passed an assessment order under Section 42 of the OVAT Act on 3rd May, 2017 allowing certain deductions while computing the tax liability.

4. On 2nd May, 2018 the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack (JCST), exercising suo motu revision power under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act, issued a notice seeking to revise the aforementioned order of the AA. On 12th July, 2018 the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Addl. CST), Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack passed an order under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act revising the original assessment order and raising an enhanced demand relating to the aforementioned tax periods.

5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Addl. CST, the Petitioner-Assessee filed an appeal before the CST under Section 79(7) of the OVAT Act. Along with the appeal the Petitioner filed two applications, one for stay and the other raising a preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Addl. CST to pass an order in suo-motu revision.

6. By an order dated 6th December, 2018 the CST rejected the application for deciding the preliminary issue. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.179 of 2019 in this Court. On 22nd January, 2019 the following order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition:

'Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha dated 06.12.2018, in Revision Case No.CU-29/V 2018-19, under Annexure-1, whereby the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner has been turned down.

In our considered opinion, the point which has been raised by the petitioner prima facie appears to have force of law, but the same can be challenged along with other grounds after the Commissioner decides the appeal, if he feels aggrieved.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

However, it is open for the Petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax) even at the time of challenging the order of the Commissioner, if occasion arises.

The original documents filed by the petitioner may be returned after substituting attested photocopies thereof.

The writ petition is disposed of with the observation made above.

All concerned Misc. Case/I.As, if any, are accordingly disposed of.' 

7. Pursuant to the above order, the Petitioner had on 2nd March, 2019 filed a petition before the CST seeking deferment of the proceedings. It is stated that on 8th March, 2018 adjournment was sought by the counsel for the Petitioner on the ground of ill-health. When this was also not agreed to by the CST, an additional ground of written note of submissions was filed by the Petitioner. 

8. On the issue of jurisdiction, three contentions were rais