Saving clause and limitation under VAT law: revisional action without pending proceedings and delayed assessment were unsustainable.

After repeal of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, only proceedings actually pending at the commencement of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were saved; revisional action initiated without any pending proceeding could not be sustained and was without jurisdiction. The note also states that assessment for 2002-2003 had to be completed within the limitation period applicable under the new regime, and an assessment order passed after expiry of that period was time-barred. Collateral proceedings did not suspend limitation unless the assessment itself was stayed. The impugned orders were therefore treated as failing on both jurisdiction and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional proceedings could be validly initiated after the coming into force of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the absence of pending proceedings under the repealed Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973; (ii) whether the assessment for the assessment year 2002-2003 was barred by limitation under the applicable statutory regime.

Issue (i): whether the revisional proceedings could be validly initiated after the coming into force of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the absence of pending proceedings under the repealed Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Analysis: The repeal and saving provision preserved only those applications, appeals, revisions, and other proceedings that were pending at the commencement of the new Act. Once the assessment order had already been passed, there was no pending proceeding to which the saving clause could attach. The revisional power could not, therefore, be exercised under the repealed regime after the new Act had come into force.

Conclusion: The revisional action was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment for the assessment year 2002-2003 was barred by limitation under the applicable statutory regime.

Analysis: The assessment year in question was governed by the limitation framework applicable after the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came into force. The assessment had to be completed within the prescribed period, and the assessment order was passed beyond that period. Pendency of collateral proceedings did not stop the running of limitation in the absence of any stay on the assessment itself. The authorities below therefore could not justify the impugned order as being within time.

Conclusion: The assessment was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders failed both on jurisdiction and on limitation, and the appeals were allowed with the adverse orders set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: After repeal of the earlier sales tax law, only pending proceedings were protected by the saving clause, and assessment or revisional action not supported by a pending proceeding or taken beyond the prescribed limitation cannot be sustained.

---