Revised jurisdiction cannot survive repeal where no proceeding was pending, and later saving or amendment provisions cannot revive it.

A repealed revisional power does not survive where no show cause notice or other effective step had been taken before repeal, and no revision proceeding was pending on the date of repeal. Section 106 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 saved only accrued rights and liabilities; it did not preserve an unexercised suo motu revision jurisdiction as a vested right. The later insertion of Section 74A could not retrospectively validate revision notices or orders issued after repeal under the old framework. The impugned revision-related action was held without jurisdiction, and relief was granted with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any revision proceedings for the assessment order had been initiated before repeal of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999; (ii) whether any such proceedings or the underlying power survived by virtue of the repealing and saving clause in Section 106 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004; (iii) whether the later insertion of Section 74A of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 could validate the impugned revisionary action taken after repeal.

Issue (i): Whether any revision proceedings for the assessment order had been initiated before repeal of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999.

Analysis: The assessment order had not been revised, nor had any show cause notice or other effective step been taken by the competent authority before the repeal date. The earlier direction to revise was never implemented and had remained stayed, and the first actual notice initiating revisionary action came only after the new enactment had come into force. On the facts, there was no pending or initiated revision proceeding on the date of repeal.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether any such proceedings or the underlying power survived by virtue of the repealing and saving clause in Section 106 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Analysis: The saving clause preserved only prior operation and rights or liabilities already acquired, accrued, or incurred. A power of suo motu revision is an enabling jurisdiction and not a vested or substantive right. Since no revision proceeding had been effectively commenced before repeal, and the new Act did not itself continue that power in the same form, the repealed revisional jurisdiction could not be carried forward by the deeming provision. A deeming fiction cannot be used to create a future operation for a power that had ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the later insertion of Section 74A of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 could validate the impugned revisionary action taken after repeal.

Analysis: The amendment introducing a fresh revisional provision came into force only later and did not operate retrospectively. It could not resurrect a dead power or validate proceedings commenced under the repealed statutes after those statutes had ceased to operate. Orders and notices founded on the repealed revisional framework therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revision-related orders and notice were without jurisdiction, the writ petition succeeded, and the assessee's entitlement to relief was affirmed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A repealed statute does not preserve an unexercised revisional power as a saved right, and a later deeming or saving clause cannot be used to continue or revive revision proceedings that were neither initiated nor pending before repeal, especially where the successor statute does not confer the same jurisdiction.

---