https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260193 Invocation of revisional jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 required a prior finding that the later matter was similar to the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon by the revisional authority. The Tribunal had not examined whether the present sales to other departments and the State Transport Corporation were comparable to the earlier case concerning sales to the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Because similarity was a necessary precondition for revision on that basis, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh decision, including on the similarity issue. en-us Tue, 19 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:28:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260193 Invocation of revisional jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 required a prior finding that the later matter was similar to the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon by the revisional authority. The Tribunal had not examined whether the present sales to other departments and the State Transport Corporation were comparable to the earlier case concerning sales to the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Because similarity was a necessary precondition for revision on that basis, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh decision, including on the similarity issue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260193