Saving clause and limitation in tax revision: post-repeal revisional action was not preserved and a seven-year delay was unreasonable.

A saving clause under a repealing statute preserves only proceedings that were actually pending on the date the new law commenced. On that basis, revisional action initiated after the repeal of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was not saved by Section 64(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 because no proceeding was pending when the VAT Act came into force. The revisional action was also outside the five-year limit in Section 46(1) of the VAT Act, and a seven-year delay was held to be plainly unreasonable. The revision was therefore barred and invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suo motu revisional proceedings initiated after the repeal of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 were saved by Section 64(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and whether the revisional power could be exercised after seven years.

Analysis: The order under appeal had been passed under the repealed sales tax regime, while the revisional authority initiated action only in 2009, long after the commencement of the 2005 Act. Section 64(3) saved only those assessment, appeal, revision or other proceedings under the repealed Act that were pending on the date of commencement of the VAT Act. Since no proceeding was pending on that date, the saving clause did not apply. The revisional authority's action was also hit by the limitation contained in Section 46(1) of the VAT Act, which required revision within five years. Even apart from the express limitation, revisional power cannot be exercised after an unreasonable lapse of time, and a delay of seven years was held to be plainly unreasonable.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were not saved by Section 64(3) of the VAT Act, 2005, and the revision initiated after seven years was barred and invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A saving clause under a repealing statute protects only pending proceedings, and revisional jurisdiction, even where no express period is prescribed, must be exercised within the statutory period or within a reasonable time.

---