Post-repeal revision barred where saving clause preserves only pending proceedings and later law shifts review jurisdiction to Tribunal

Where the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 saved only pending proceedings and showed an intention to close concluded matters under the repealed sales tax regime, the Supreme Court held that suo motu revisional power under Section 40 of the repealed Act could not be exercised after repeal when no proceeding was pending. The Court also held that review power under Section 41 of the repealed Act could not survive once the new Act vested review jurisdiction exclusively in the Tribunal under Section 35. Both challenges failed, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could be exercised after repeal of that Act when no proceedings were pending on the date of commencement of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003; (ii) Whether the review power under Section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could validly be exercised after the new Act came into force when Section 35 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 vested review jurisdiction exclusively in the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could be exercised after repeal of that Act when no proceedings were pending on the date of commencement of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The repeal provision in Section 61 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 saved only pending proceedings and also reflected a different intention to close concluded matters under the repealed Act. Where the assessment had attained finality and no proceeding was pending on the relevant date, the revisional power under the repealed Act could not be revived by resort to the Punjab General Clauses Act. The later amendment to Section 61 also showed that the legislature itself treated the original provision as not preserving such post-repeal revision.

Conclusion: The post-repeal exercise of revisional power under Section 40 was not sustainable and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the review power under Section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could validly be exercised after the new Act came into force when Section 35 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 vested review jurisdiction exclusively in the Tribunal.

Analysis: The relevant statutory scheme under the new Act placed review power in the Tribunal, and the precedents relied upon on behalf of the appellants concerned materially different legislative provisions. On the facts of the connected appeal, the exercise of review by the officer under the repealed regime could not be sustained against the framework created by the new Act.

Conclusion: The review order was not interfered with, and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory repeal and the saving provision were construed as excluding post-repeal reassessment action in closed matters, and the connected challenge to the review jurisdiction also failed. The common judgment accordingly upheld the revenue's stand and left the impugned orders undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealing statute saves only pending proceedings and manifests a contrary intention, post-repeal exercise of revisional power under the repealed Act is barred; the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to preserve such jurisdiction.

---