A mere error in exercise of jurisdiction would not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the said order was valid unless set aside
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Orrisa High Court has declined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction against the revision order passed under State Sales Tax Act holding that lack of jurisdiction strikes at the very root of the action/act and want of jurisdiction might vitiate proceedings rendering the orders passed and exercise thereof, a nullity. But a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction would not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the said order was valid unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4758 (2025) (09) abcaus.in HC
The Petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the revision order passed by the Additional Commissioner GST under section 23(4)(a) of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act).
The case of the Petitioner was that the Additional Commissioner lacks jurisdiction, therefore, in invoking power u/s 23(4)(a) of the OST Act. It was further submitted that though alternative remedy is provided for under Section 23(4)(c) of the OST Act, since the Additional Commissioner had initiated proceeding under the delegated power of the Commissioner, the appeal envisaged under the said clause before the Commissioner would be a futile exercise.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Additional Commissioner is delegated with the power of revision to invoke Section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act which includes “on his own motion”. If the order in Revision is passed exercising power under Section 23(4)(a) by the authority subordinate to the Commissioner, an appeal lies to the Commissioner. The exercise of power under Section 23(4)(a) by the Additional Commissioner leaves no manner of scope for the Commissioner to exercise such power again. There are other provisions also where the Commissioner is empowered under the Act to exercise jurisdiction, but delegated such power to the authorities below. Therefore, the appeal against the order passed in revision by the Additional Commissioner would lie before the Commissioner under Section 23(4)(c)(ii) of the OST Act.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the petitioner, though was aware of the above legal position, had filed the present writ petition with a view to drag on the proceedings on the one hand and to postpone the payment of tax for a considerable period.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that whether the Additional Commissioner has seemly exercised his power of revision as delegated coupled with the question whether twin conditions as envisaged under Rule 80 of the OST Rules are satisfied, are the domain of the appellate authority vested with power under Section 23(4)(c) of the OST Act. In addition thereto, any other ground(s) that may also be urged by the petitioner.
Hon’ble High Court noted that as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where an adjudicatory process is involved on merits, then the only remedy open to an aggrieved is to go through the procedure provided under the enactment. Nonetheless, where there is absence of jurisdictional fact, the Authority cannot wrongly assume existence of jurisdictional fact and proceed to decide a matter and in such eventuality, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that ‘jurisdiction’ means authority to decide. Whenever a judicial or quasi judicial Tribunal is empowered or required to enquire into a question of law or fact for the purpose of giving a decision on it, its findings thereon cannot be impeached collaterally or on an application for certiorari but are binding until reversed on appeal. Where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion whether it is wrong in law or in fact.
The Hon’ble High Court further stated that the question, whether a Tribunal has jurisdiction depends not on the truth or falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire, or upon the correctness of its findings on these facts, but upon their nature, and it is determinable ‘at the commencement, not at the conclusion of the inquiry’.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that lack of jurisdiction strikes at the very root of the action/act and want of jurisdiction might vitiate proceedings rendering the orders passed and exercise thereof, a nullity. But a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction would not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the said order was valid unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge, subject to law of limitation.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court declined from exercising discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction and relegated petitioner to avail alternative remedy as available under the OST Act.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Due date for filing GSTR-3B for month of Sept 2025 extended to 25.10.2025
- When books rejected, no disallowance can be made on basis of entries in books
- Non resident assessee need not have a PE in India for carrying business in India – SC
- Non-filing of Form 67 with ITR at best is a technical violation – ITAT
- Price of unaccounted purchase can not be taken solely on sworn statement of partner
