The Orissa High Court recently addressed a legal matter involving Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and the Additional Commissioner of CT & GST, concerning a revision order under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. BSNL was assessed for the financial year 1996-97, and after prolonged litigation, a fresh assessment in June 2022 resulted in a NIL liability, leading to a refund claim. However, in March 2025, the Additional Commissioner initiated a suo motu revision under Section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act, which culminated in a revised order in May 2025, demanding approximately ₹20.8 lakhs from BSNL.
BSNL challenged this revised order through a writ petition, arguing that the Additional Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to issue such an order, rendering it void. The primary issue was whether the revision order could be directly challenged via writ jurisdiction due to the alleged lack of jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner. The court, however, found that the Additional Commissioner had been appropriately delegated the necessary powers under the OST Act to issue the order.
The court emphasized that an appeal under Section 23(4)(c)(ii) before the Commissioner was an available remedy, even if the order was issued by a delegate. It dismissed BSNL's argument that pursuing an appeal would be futile, underscoring that statutory appellate forums cannot be bypassed without extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed, with the court advising BSNL to pursue the statutory appeal process.
Order date: 04 Sept 2025
Parties: M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors.
Facts -
- The petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), was assessed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 for the assessment year 1996–97. After multiple rounds of litigation, including a remand by the High Court in 2021, a fresh assessment order was passed on 04.06.2022 which determined a NIL liability, resulting in a claim of refund.
- On 18.03.2025, the Additional Commissioner invoked Section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act and issued a notice of suo motu revision, culminating in a revised order dated 31.05.2025 that raised a demand of approximately ₹20.8 lakhs.
- Challenging this order, BSNL filed the present writ petition contending that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and that the order was therefore void.
Issue -
- Whether the Additional Commissioner’s revision order was without jurisdiction and could be directly challenged in writ jurisdiction?
Order -
- The division bench of the Hon’ble high court observed that the Additional Commissioner had been duly delegated powers under Section 23(4)(a) and was therefore competent to pass the impugned order.
- It held that the remedy of appeal under Section 23(4)(c)(ii) before the Commissioner remained available, even when the order was passed by a delegate of the Commissioner.
- The Court rejected BSNL’s contention that the appeal would be a futile exercise, clarifying that availability of a statutory appellate forum cannot be bypassed unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
- Consequently, the writ petition was declared not maintainable and was dismissed, while liberty was given to the petitioner to pursue its statutory appeal.
