Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1074 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDelayed Service of SCN - whether the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), which was served upon the petitioner on 29.12.2021 i.e. after 22 months, would render the revisional order without jurisdiction? HELD THAT:- This aspect has already been considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS KHETMAL PAREKH & M. RAMAKISHTAIAH AND CO. [1994 (2) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT]. In that case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had allowed the revision filed by the assessee on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the said order on 06.01.1973, but it was served on the assessee only on 21.11.1973. The High Court had accepted the submission of the assessee that the order, which was served beyond the period of limitation, could not have been passed before expiry of limitation on 06.01.1973. The order could have been communicated within a reasonable period. The High Court further held that the respondent-assessee was not bound by that order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and held that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the Court must presume that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made. Reference can also be made to a decision given by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in AJANTHA INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS [1975 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that non-communication of order is a serious infirmity. The ratio of the above said judgments is directly applicable to the facts of the present case - In the present case, the assessment order was passed on 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) and notice for re-assessment was issued on 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-2). Even though, the final order was passed on 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), it was received by the petitioner on 29.12.2021 i.e. after 22 months of passing thereof. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, no explanation has been given, as to why this delay took place and who was responsible for such a long delay in communicating the impugned order to the assessee. Petition allowed.
|