Limitation on revisional power: time-barred tax notices were quashed because the later eight-year extension did not apply.

Revisional notices under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were invalid because they were issued after the five-year limitation period had expired. The later amendment extending the outer limit to eight years did not apply, as it was confined to cases where review, revision or corrective action had been delayed or blocked by a judgment or decree of a court or tribunal. The record showed no such judicial impediment, so the extended period could not revive an already time-barred exercise of revisional power. The impugned notices were therefore without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued for exercise of revisional power under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 were valid when issued beyond the five-year period of limitation, and whether the extended eight-year period introduced by the later amendment applied to the case.

Analysis: Section 40 prescribed a five-year outer limit for revision. The Court held that the amendment deeming the limitation to be eight years had no application because it was confined to cases where review, revision, or corrective action could not be initiated or finalised on account of a judgment or decree of a court or tribunal. The State's case was not one of delay attributable to such a judicial impediment, and the notices were issued after the original limitation had expired.

Conclusion: The impugned notices were without jurisdiction as they were issued beyond the limitation period, and the petitioner succeeded.

---