Revisional power beyond limitation under VAT law can operate independently when specified statutory events occur, despite earlier departmental practice.

Section 34(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 gives the Commissioner revisional power, and the second part of the second proviso operates as an independent source of authority to act beyond three years where there is a retrospective change in law, a Tribunal decision in a similar case, or a declaration of law by the High Court or Supreme Court. That extended power is not merely an exception to limitation and is not defeated by an earlier departmental view. Applying this interpretation, the Tribunal's approach was found erroneous, its order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second part of the second proviso to section 34(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 confers an independent power to revise an assessment after three years on the occurrence of specified events; (ii) Whether the existence of a prior departmental view barred invocation of the revisional power beyond three years.

Issue (i): Whether the second part of the second proviso to section 34(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 confers an independent power to revise an assessment after three years on the occurrence of specified events.

Analysis: Section 34(1) confers revisional power on the Commissioner, while the first part of the second proviso limits exercise of that power after three years from supply of the assessment order. The second part of the proviso permits revision beyond three years where there is a retrospective change in law, a decision of the Tribunal in a similar case, or a declaration of law by the High Court or the Supreme Court. This power is not an exception dependent on the earlier limitation but a separate and independent source of authority.

Conclusion: The revisional power could be exercised beyond three years if one of the specified conditions existed.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of a prior departmental view barred invocation of the revisional power beyond three years.

Analysis: The statutory power under the second part of the second proviso does not depend upon whether the department had earlier taken a similar view. Once the controversy was settled by a declaration of law by the High Court, the Commissioner was entitled to act under the proviso notwithstanding earlier departmental practice. The Tribunal's reasoning treated the proviso as a mere exception to limitation and was held to be based on a interpretation of the provision.

Conclusion: The prior departmental view did not bar exercise of revisional power beyond three years.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute permits revision beyond the normal limitation period on the occurrence of specified statutory events, that power operates independently of the ordinary time bar and is not defeated by an earlier departmental view.

---