Revisional jurisdiction under VAT law and pre-appointed-day notification validity remained open for fresh Tribunal reconsideration.

The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 vests revisional power in the Commissioner, but the State Government may confer that power by notification on an officer not below the rank of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The validity and operative effect of a notification issued before the appointed day, and the resulting source of revisional jurisdiction, require examination on the relevant material. A jurisdictional objection going to the root of the matter may also be raised in appeal under Sections 36(6) and 36(9). The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the issue afresh after hearing the parties, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner could validly exercise revisional power under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the basis of the notification issued before the appointed day, and whether the jurisdictional objection could be examined for the first time in appeal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme shows that revisional power under Section 34(1) vests in the Commissioner, while Section 34(2) permits the State Government to confer that power by notification on an officer not below the rank of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The Act came into force on the appointed day, and the validity and effect of the notification as well as the source of the revisional authority's jurisdiction required examination on the relevant material. The Court also noted that the issue went to the root of jurisdiction and could be raised in appeal in view of Section 36(6) and Section 36(9) of the Act.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional issue was left open for reconsideration by the Tribunal, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties.

---