Procedural provisions under the new sales tax law govern post-commencement assessments, extending the revision period and defeating delay objections.

Where assessment proceedings are initiated after commencement of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, the procedural provisions of that Act apply even if the assessment year relates to the earlier regime. The Delhi HC noted that the Act permitted revision within two years of service of the assessment order, so the revision was not time-barred. It also held that a writ challenging only the revisional order was not liable to be rejected for delay or laches when filed promptly after that order, because the assessment order date was not ative for that challenge. The revisional order was set aside and the revision remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision filed under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether the revision filed under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The revision was filed against an assessment order passed after the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 had come into force, though the assessment year related to the earlier regime. The assessment proceedings were initiated after the new Act had commenced. In such a situation, the procedural provisions of the repealing enactment govern the proceedings. Since the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 allowed revision within two years of service of the assessment order, the revision could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The revision was within limitation and the finding of time-bar was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for delay and laches.

Analysis: The challenge in the writ petition was confined to the revisional order, not the assessment order itself. The writ was filed promptly after the revisional order, and the date of the assessment order was not decisive for the purpose of delay in assailing the revisional order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not barred by delay or laches.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside and the matter was sent back for decision of the revision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where assessment proceedings are initiated after the commencement of the new sales tax enactment, the procedural provisions of that enactment, including the enlarged period for revision, apply even if the assessment year relates to the earlier regime.

---