Revisional power and repeal: express saving of pending proceedings barred fresh action under the repealed sales tax law.

A writ petition remained maintainable where the impugned revisional order was challenged as without jurisdiction, so the existence of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar review. The revisional authority could not invoke revisional power under the repealed Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 after the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came into force, because the later Act expressly repealed the earlier regime and saved only pending applications, appeals, revisions and other proceedings. That specific saving displaced the general saving under the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898. As no revision was pending when the new Act commenced, revisional jurisdiction could not be initiated over concluded matters.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority could invoke revisional power under the repealed Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 after the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came into force, and whether the availability of an alternative appellate remedy barred writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected because a writ petition is maintainable where the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the right of appeal from the power of revision and held that a revisional power is not a vested right in favour of the department or a suitor. Section 61 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 expressly repealed the earlier Act and provided a specific saving only for pending applications, appeals, revisions, and other proceedings. That express legislative scheme showed a different intention, excluding the general saving under section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898. Since no revision proceeding was pending when the new Act commenced, the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to initiate action under the repealed Act.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were without jurisdiction and the writ petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional orders succeeded because the repeal and saving provisions of the later Act did not preserve an unfettered suo motu revisional power over completed assessments under the repealed enactment.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory revisional power is not a vested right like an appellate remedy, and where a repealing statute contains an express saving limited to pending proceedings, the general saving provision cannot be used to continue revisional jurisdiction over concluded matters.

---