Limitation for suo motu revision under sales tax law required fresh judicial consideration before quashing revision notices.

The limitation proviso in section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act was central because the dispute turned on whether the Commissioner's suo motu revision had to be initiated within five years or whether the final revisional order had to be passed within that period. As that statutory construction issue had not been argued or decided by the High Court, the quashing of the revision notices could not stand without first resolving the limitation question and the effect of the notices. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the dispute, including the limitation issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's order quashing the revision notices could stand when the crucial question whether the limitation in the proviso to section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act governs initiation of revision proceedings or passing of the final revisional order had not been considered and decided.

Analysis: The limitation question under section 40 was central to the dispute because the parties' rights depended on whether the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power had to be exercised by merely initiating proceedings within five years or by completing the revisional order within that period. That issue had not been argued or adjudicated before the High Court, yet it went to the root of the matter. In these circumstances, the High Court's order could not be sustained without first determining the statutory construction of the limitation proviso and the effect of the revisional notices issued under the Act.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the dispute, including the limitation issue under section 40.

---