Timely communication of revisional orders is essential; unexplained delay can defeat an otherwise dated-within-time tax revision.

Timely communication is integral to the effectiveness of a revisional order under the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, even where the order is dated within the limitation period. The text states that an order affecting civil rights must be communicated within a reasonable time, and unexplained inordinate delay may render the action ineffective or incomplete. Applying that principle, a 22-month delay in serving the revisional order, without explanation, was treated as fatal to the impugned revision. The text also notes that the assessee was not required to preserve books beyond the statutory period under the Act, which supported the challenge to the delayed communication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order, though dated within the limitation period, became without jurisdiction because it was communicated to the assessee after an unexplained delay of 22 months.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 prescribed a limitation period for revision, and the validity of the revisional action had to be tested not merely by the date borne on the order but also by timely communication to the affected assessee. The Court relied on the settled principle that an order affecting civil rights must be communicated within a reasonable time, and that unexplained non-communication or inordinate delay may render the order ineffective and incomplete. Since no explanation was offered for the long delay in serving the order, and the assessee was not bound to preserve books beyond the statutory period under Sections 14(2) and 29(1) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, the delayed communication was treated as fatal to the impugned revisional action.

Conclusion: The delayed and unexplained communication of the revisional order rendered it liable to be set aside, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---