Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Revisional Authority could invoke suo motu revisional powers under the repealed Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 after the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came into force, and whether the consequential revisional and tribunal orders were without jurisdiction and non est.
Analysis: The appeal turned on the effect of repeal of the 1973 Act and the saving provision in the 2003 Act. The saving clause preserved only pending proceedings under the repealed law. The revisional notice and order were issued after the repeal had taken effect, when no proceedings were pending. In that situation, the earlier revisional power could not be exercised, and the later amendments did not revive a power that had already ceased to exist for closed matters.
Conclusion: The Revisional Authority lacked jurisdiction to act after repeal, and the order passed by it, along with the consequential tribunal order, was non est and liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The VAT appeal succeeded and the impugned tribunal order was quashed on the ground that post-repeal revisional action under the old enactment could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealing statute saves only pending proceedings, no fresh revisional proceeding can be initiated under the repealed enactment after the repeal has taken effect.