Revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 needs a prior similarity finding before reliance on an earlier Tribunal decision.

Invocation of revisional jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 required a prior finding that the later matter was similar to the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon by the revisional authority. The Tribunal had not examined whether the present sales to other departments and the State Transport Corporation were comparable to the earlier case concerning sales to the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Because similarity was a necessary precondition for revision on that basis, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh decision, including on the similarity issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was required to decide, before sustaining invocation of revisional jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, whether the present case was similar to the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon by the revisional authority.

Analysis: The revision was founded on the later Tribunal decision concerning sales to the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. The Court noted that the present dispute concerned sales to other departments and to the State Transport Corporation, and that the crucial threshold question was whether the present matter was similar to the earlier case so as to attract the second proviso to Section 34. That issue had not been considered by the Tribunal at all. As the similarity finding was a necessary precondition for invoking revisional power on the basis of the earlier decision, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision, including on the issue of similarity for application of the second proviso to Section 34.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of revisional jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 34 requires a prior determination that the later case is similar to the earlier case relied upon for revision.

---